Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 May 3 May >

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan George[edit]

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

The article is unsourced and it fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided come from the Internet Movie Database, which is not a reliable source.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source that says that George won a Drama Desk Award is a dead link. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has sources and subject is an award-winning actor so clearly meets notability guidelines. Tassedethe (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, which calls for multiple significant roles. There's no evidence of that here. Even in the one film for which the article states the subject had a lead role, the article for the film itself doesn't corroborate it (the subject's role isn't mentioned at all in the plot synopsis). NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He won a prominent award for acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable, even considering the award, for the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per John Pack. I have added some additional information and sources to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What an awful, awful nomination. If you're unsure of the notability of an American theater figure, the first step should be to check the NYTimes archives, widely accessible though most English-language libraries. The subject is a well-known, well-regarded actor, director and producer whose work was often reviewed there. There's also no doubt he won the Obie Award in the debut run of a Pultizer winning play [1], which you'd think would make this a slam dunk, but fewer !voters here seem to value a Drama Desk- and Obie-winning actor more than a porn performer named Superslut of the Year by a batch of mostly pseudonymous guys who work mostly for porn vendors and promoters. It's just horrific to see nominations like this made and garnering support. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:36, 3 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 arguments to keep are both more cogent and more numerous. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 15:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lokiec[edit]

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

The subject wrote to Wikimedia, requesting deletion. Our processes are such that we do not directly delete (with rare exceptions) but we will nominate for deletion on their behalf. They particularly object to inaccurate descriptions such as "He creates multiple, disconnected images to make a work, often using pens, markers and screen-printing to address subjects including drugs, bathrooms, sex and rainbows." S Philbrick(Talk) 21:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No compelling argument has been made to delete the article, and the artist has been reviewed fairly extensively in reliable sources. If Lokiec perceives inaccuracies, I suggest that he post proposed corrections on the article talk page. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see why he would object to that. It sounds ridiculous and it is the first Google hit for his name. It even gets used in the little bio which Google shows when you search for his name. I can see that it would be a real annoyance and an impediment to his being taken seriously. His notability is borderline. We don't need to have an article about him. The choices here are either to delete the article or to gut out the nonsense leaving a very small stub. Either would be OK but if his preference is for the former then I see no reason to deny him that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After editing it now seems harmless enough. Google are no longer showing the terrible old version of the lead paragraph when you search for him. Bing still is, but I assume that they will catch up eventually. I'll switch to neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It certainly seems that the article includes sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass regular WP:GNG. It also seems that, whatever the article's faults, it isn't unsalvageable. It's a separate issue from this AfD, but perhaps the subject's objections could be copied to the article's talk page. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seeing as how even in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Lokiec they could not find cause to delete, we must keep. I'm content with a stub article and a set of reliable sources until someone does it right. -- RM 03:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: The contentious statement was unsourced, and so I removed it as per WP:RELIABLE. -- RM 03:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Mduvekot makes a compelling argument. I still think that there are (barely) enough reliable sources. However, in such a borderline case, I think we should err on deletion when the person has requested deletion. That said, this person better remain a low-profile individual from this point forward. Any more significant coverage and there will simply be too much out there to prevent deletion in the future. -- RM 01:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. As per my previous statement, the additional sources push this over the threshold for significant coverage. And the editors have done a good job cleaning it up too, so TNT is no longer required. -- RM 13:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps as I still question it for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I didn't realize that we deleted articles just because something may sound "ridiculous". A stub is certainly not out of the question, there's plenty of reliable sources that'll push it past - someone just needs to do it. Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that articles got deleted just because they sounded ridiculous. My point was that the content, now removed, was an embarrassment to Wikipedia and also a legitimate cause of annoyance and embarrassment to the subject which might impede him in being taken seriously. That, in itself, is only an argument to delete that part of the article not the whole thing. The argument to delete the whole article is that the subject has borderline notability and is concerned enough to contact Wikipedia saying that he would rather not have an article. One way to look at this is to ask whether deleting this article would leave a genuine gap that diminishes Wikipedia. I can't see that is does. It doesn't mean that we are going to start deleting articles about more notable people who might wish to avoid scrutiny. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the person who closes this may choose to delete the article (by default) if it fails to reach a consensus one way or another. Until that occurs, however, we should each focus on policy reasons to keep or not. -- RM 14:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An American artist whose work is reviewed in the NYTimes is presumptively notable, and no attempt at refutation has been advanced. If article lousiness was a deletion criterion, AFD would be a lot busier. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first, I wanted to do what the subject of the BLP article asked us to do, for whatever motivation, as long as they were barely borderline notable. Uh oh, this artist has exhibited clear signs of notability by showing their work in notable galleries and cities and reliable sources. But then I checked the year of those shows: 2003, 2005 was the latest, and began to realize that if the subject of the article was notable, they no longer are, as nothing has been written about them in a long time. Prhartcom (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the merits, but note that our practice is that notability is not temporary: once notable, always notable.  Sandstein  12:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment appreciated; that does sound correct. Prhartcom (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  12:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not seeing a convincing argument for deletion. Subject appears to pass WP:GNG. Article isn't great, but equally not terrible. —  crh 23  (Talk) 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although art-cruft judgmental language--no doubt reflecting observers' issues more than the artist's--has been reduced, this is an article that didn't work. Who the hell is justified in selecting completely arbitrary bits of quotes to define this artist and his work? It doesn't add to the encyclopedia, and it does harm an individually continually with its irritating/condescending/judgmental posture, so please delete it. --doncram 15:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should WP:TNT it. The subject is notable, but it is pretty clear that the bias of the article is actually affecting the subject. Which is silly. If we blow it up, someone could have another go at starting again and hopefully this time it'll be more neutral. JMWt (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see a specific policy or guideline to why this should be deleted. If someone has a problem with the article they or someone else can clean it up to make it accurate. JayJayWhat did I do? 19:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do no harm is a solid principle to live by. See wp:Avoiding harm (DONOHARM). It is an essay, but it suggests an inclusion test: Is the information already widely known? Is the information definitive and factual? Is the information given due weight in relation to the subject's notability? Most/all the material was NO, NO (not defining), and NO. Then at wp:DONOHARM#For deletion of an article, "If there would not be enough to sustain the article, that is, the remaining content contains no evidence of notability, then temporarily delete the entire article." --doncram 19:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and agree with Sandstein that our practice is that notability is not temporary: once notable, always notable, and with finding at least 6 Google Book references to this articles subject, and reviewing same, this article just needs some work, not deletion. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've rewritten the lead for this article adding references and citations, hope this helps. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've added more content and sourcing for this article. Hope it helps. Picomtn (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article subject has received significant coverage across numerous sources and passes WP:GNG. The rewritten lede and extra references added by Picomtn add greatly to the article. The artist has well crossed the threshold of notability as well. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant, did you not notice that Picomtn didn't add a new reference but created a second reference for smith that was already cited twice? Mduvekot (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mduvekot: (cc @Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant:) Thank you so much for pointing this out, but, I failed in my invoking of reference 9 to reference 2 to fix this and don't know what I did wrong and am hoping you, or someone, can fix this as I'm off to class now. If not, I'll fix tommrow. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:08, 4 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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsvilla[edit]

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

The article doesn't meet the notability criteria for inclusion as per WP:COMPANY. The sources are press releases such as reference #2 i.e. "Craftsvilla ropes in Manish Kalra from Amazon" returning same press releases[2]. Allahomora(talk) 14:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing including for the applicable notability, listed information and sources are not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Most of these sources were found by simply reading articles from links obtained in the Find sources template atop this page, and viewing results past the first search results page. North America1000 11:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Craftsvilla ropes in Manish Kalra from Amazon - Livemint. – Note that this article is from the Press Trust of India, the largest news agency in India that was founded in 1947. It is not a press release from the company, and is the same type of content that news agencies such as the Associated Press publish. It is a reliable source.
  2. ^ Meet Craftsvilla founder Manoj Gupta - Times of India
  3. ^ Did all the things a startup shouldn’t do: Craftsvilla co-founder Manoj Gupta - The Economic Times
  4. ^ Lendingkart joins hands with Craftsvilla.com for loans to its sellers - The Economic Times
  5. ^ Poor and the deprived have a space in this Craftsvilla - The Economic Times
  6. ^ Why Flipkart, Craftsvilla and others are banking big on image search
  7. ^ My work with artisans led to Craftsvilla.com, says co-founder Monica Gupta - Firstpost
  8. ^ Craftsvilla expands reach to Middle East, New Zealand and Australia - Times of India
  • It seems the Press Trust of India might provides press release service[3]. All these sources are simply press-releases by the company. For example, take any sources such as this[4] Economic Times source which seems reliable but if you make a simple Google search on Google India with the news title i.e. "Lendingkart joins hands with Craftsvilla.com for loans to its sellers" you will get tons of these press-release from variety of sources[5]. Allahomora(talk) 17:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Press Trust of India notwithstanding, look closely and notice how in your example, though, that the only legitimate articles from the second link you post above are from the source itself, The Economic Times. The remainder are unreliable sources that have copied the content from the reliable source article, quite likely without permission. When unreliable sources copy content from reliable ones, that does not then render the reliable source as a press release or unreliable whatsoever. The same holds true for other sources I posted (see examples below). These are certainly not press releasees by the company. North America1000 07:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I know a third relist is unusual, and I know North America's presentation of sources was 11 days ago, but I'd still like to see those sources get better scrutiny before closing this. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The sources above are simply expected coverage and thus are solidly the expected better coverage that is needed. It's worth noting this is a common situation with these Indian companies, there's not always the sufficiently solid enough coverage. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I question whether or not you actually read the articles I posted, and "expected coverage" is quite ambiguous and subjective as a rationale for deletion of a Wikipedia article. Prior to the comment you posted above at 23:53 (diff), you provided an !vote at other discussions at 23:49 (diff) and 23:51 (diff). Did you actually open and read the articles I posted above in two or less minutes? Many of the articles I posted above provide quite detailed background, history and information about the company. North America1000 11:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the situation with relists, I'm asking DGG for his analysis as I know he's always willing to help at troubled AfDs. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: Not to be brash, but when you ping specific editors who have not contributed to the article or discussion, it comes across as potential canvassing, particularly because you and DGG often share the same general and overall opinions about company articles, that many of them should be deleted. North America1000 06:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Check the records, When ST asks me for comment, I agree with his view only about half the time. I disagree 1/4,and have only a comment or not comment at all for the other 25%. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000 I will be frank, if you have nothing but to criticize every single comment of mine with tossed comments, it's WP:HOUNDING. I ask you before to please distance yourself from me about that, and yet you have continued after I asked you to stop. As for pinging, I have by far explained this and have absolutely no need to explain again. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record and anyone else interested, I'll save DGG the moment to respond, he has explicitly mentioned he asks to be notified. SwisterTwister talk 08:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that DGG asks to be pinged. Thanks for the clarification. North America1000 09:25, 9 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 10:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internet humor[edit]

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

How do we know what to include? Plus, I do not believe it is possible to find Reliable coverage on this topic. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are plenty of sources, but although some are from news websites, I'm not sure how reliable they are. I'm leaning "Keep" for now, but I could change my mind. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – WP:GNG pass. Below are some book, scholarly journal and news sources. Many of these sources were found using links in the Find sources template atop this nomination page. North America1000 11:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merger is also probable if discussed separately. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naziruddin Jehad[edit]

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

Esentially this person's notability relies on WP:ONEEVENT. No need for a lengthe article which risks becoming a POV fork. TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The mass uprising restored democracy to Bangladesh and ended the nearly decade long dictatorship of Ershad. Which makes the mass uprising a significant event. This person was the first to die in the movement to restore democracy. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. from WP:ONEEVENT. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:03, 2 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. North America1000 12:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kodambakkam (film)[edit]

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

Not notable at all. Sourced only to one review, which consists almost entirely of a plot summary, with a few sentences of commentary. That one review is not substantial coverage, and on its own does not come near to establishing notability. Searches for other sources produced this Wikipedia article, a download site where the film can be obtained, a "gallery" page displaying stills from the film, pages giving links to download songs from the film, etc etc, but no substantial coverage in independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Really, the one review "consists almost entirely of a plot summary, with a few sentences of commentary"? Are you sure you nominated for deletion the article you intended to? Cause the source I see in Kodambakkam (film) has only 3 sentences of plot summary, the rest is commentary. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nominator should keep in mind that "Tamil movie" means a movie in Tamil language, hence a review could look like: this. We are talking of a commercial movie produced and released in theatres in Tamil Nadu, an Indian state with a population bigger than Britain, France or South Korea, not to mention California. Clearly notable. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unless the necessary local news coverage can be found, nothing suggests an currently acceptable English article for the English Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SwisterTwister: You confuse me by your ignoring the two sources already offered and by what appears to be an insistence that the article be perfect when that is not what guideline tells us. Schmidt, Michael Q. 13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in looking further:
tamil:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
distributor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Kodambakkam Movie Jaganji Nandha Diya Tejashree V.S Satheesan K.Seveal AAA Productions
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 23:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per MQS and Biwom. You found very good sources, meets WP:GNG. @SwisterTwister:, as I have said previously, do not just say "delete", as you have a tendency to vote delete on almost all articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. —Vensatry (Talk) 14:39, 4 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. Consensus is to Keep and that the article now meets GNG (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 21:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheex[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this company. The references are for key personnel and the company's own web-site. Searches reveals a few product reviews and a court case about patent infringement but nothing substantial. Nothing here suggests notability of the company itself. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   22:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all for solid independent notability, article is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 12:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – See WP:NEXIST. Topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, it is based upon the availability of reliable sources. North America1000 12:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic actually comfortably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. North America1000 12:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the high probability that all of these are essentially re-worded press releases, they give no notability to the company. What they might give is notability to a product made by the company, but looking at the similarities in the woding in the sources, I even doubt that.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – You have provided no evidence to substantiate your opinion of the sources supposedly being "re-worded press releases"; they are not. These are bylined news articles from reputable news sources. Several of the sources provide significant background and history about the company and its founders. For starters, read the articles from The Huffington Post and CNBC. Then be sure to also read the Columbia Regional Business Report article. Did you even read the articles, or just glance at "similarities in the woding in the sources"? North America1000 13:28, 5 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. North America1000 21:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ballia Ke Dabangai[edit]

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

This article has already been deleted once via a PROD and has been recreated. The references are weak and the only one with information, a blogspot page, says it will be "released soon" but this was stated on January 2, 2016. This article still doesn't state a release date for this film so it is impossible to know if this movie has been completed or scheduled for an actual release to theaters or direct to DVD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
in looking before opining:
Original Hindi:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: बलिया के दबंगई Ballia Ke Dabangai Sammim Saiyad Bhrigu Brinda Vinod B Singh Manoj R Pandey Priya Sharma
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 21:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ModPro Hackers The Movie[edit]

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

Article about an unreleased film, written by its producer, director, writer and star Aanish Ayaz (talk · contribs). The film "is being made by a Team which has never ever done anything related to Film making", and is not due for release until 2017. There is an IMDb entry, a 50-second Youtube "leak" uploaded by Ayaz, and all the usual social media, Facebook, Twitter etc; but no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to indicate that this is anywhere near the standard of WP:NFILM. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
year/type:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: ModPro Hackers Muhammad Aanish Ayaz Muhammad Hussain Zafar M.A.A.F Productions
  • Delete this article as failing WP:NF and (at kindest) being far TOO SOON. I gave this thing a face-lift per MOS:FILM, but it lacks sourcability and needs to be deleted. Allow a return only when or if it gets proper coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Absolutely nothing showing why it's notable, no reliable sources as well. I'd almost say this could fall under CSD A7. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly too soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 9 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. No opposition, and no indication that there will be any. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Football chant[edit]

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

I do not believe this article meets WP:NOTE and it does not seem to assert the importance or significance of the topic that it is written about. The content of the article is also questionable. Olowe2011 Talk 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment I would be inclined to remove the nomination if the article was re written. Olowe2011 Talk 18:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep AFD is not for cleanup 206.82.167.3 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is notable, because of the massive amount of coverage soccer (or football, if you're British) gets in the world. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 21:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - No valid reason for deletion - Notable subject all backed up by reliable sources, Meets NOTE & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 21:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And because Football gets a lot of coverage and is clearly notable does that mean any and all related topics are notable? The question should be is football chant as an article significant and notable or would it be better placed as a section within the football article itself? Olowe2011 Talk 22:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Results from the "Find sources" links at the top of the page, including "books" and "scholar" results, make it abundantly clear that the topic has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as per WP:GNG.

    Having said that, the article itself is an example of a systemic problem with popular culture topics: people want to turn them into lists, either highlighting their personal interests or adding whatever's just gone viral on social media. It'd be lovely if someone with the time and ability turned it into an outline of the history of the football chant and its function in society, with reference to sources both popular and intellectual and illustrative examples, hived off the worst of the listy stuff to a List of... article, and applied full protection for ever, but I'm guessing it won't happen anytime soon. As someone said above, AfD isn't cleanup. The topic is notable. Keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, meets GNG. GiantSnowman 17:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets GNG from the sources in the article and a simple search. Format of article is undesirable and needs reworking, but the subject is notable. Fenix down (talk) 07:35, 6 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 Medical test. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 23:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostic test[edit]

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

No general source is identified which discusses the concept of a "diagnostic test". I do not think any of the content here is worth keeping because none is backed with strong sources. The information shared here overlaps with Medical diagnosis and Screening (medicine), and if anything could be kept it might be merged into either place, but I think this call could be deleted.

A "diagnostic test" or "diagnostic testing" article might exist but this one has had no substantive content for some years. If anyone wants to keep this it needs to be trimmed and someone needs to show some sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Possibly this could be replaced by disambiguation but tests are done for diagnosis of all kinds of issues. We have medical test so we don't need this; if it weren't for the lack of field specificity I'd call for a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a highly notable topic, with hundreds of thousands of hits in GBooks and GScholar. Sources like
show this is discussed in mainstream medical sources. And this is only the narrow medical aspect. Diagnostic testing is important in education, automotive, and IT fields. Frankly, I have never seen a more notable topic proposed for deletion. Regarding the article itself, it is sourced, maybe not to MEDRS standards, but it is a start. More importantly, AfD is not for article cleanup and there is no time limit for improvement. A very highly notable topic and an article with no insurmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to medical test Within medicine, it's a near-synonym (it also has other contexts outside of medicine, and if such articles are written they need to be disambiguated. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect The topic is clearly notable, but is covered in Medical test. The latter is currently a better article. The title can be discussed later. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect perhaps if needed as although I'm better confident with DGG's analysis, this seems best connected to that other article. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE and Mark viking. Alternately, merge into medical test. A redirect, at the very least, is needed for what would no doubt be a common search term. An outright deletion would just frustrate young students looking for an article with an overview of the topic. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A diagnostic test is not a synonym of medical test, but it is part of it and correctly referenced as "main article" there, just like the other forms of medical testing are. On notability, it clearly is, as described by others above. WP:BEFORE comes to mind here. DeVerm (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel the topic is one of the three arms of biotechnology where it is mentioned in the lede: new drugs, devices or diagnostic tests. Does anyone in medicine say "medical test"? I think not, but rather the term is "diagnostic test" which, IMO, should be the main title if a redirect is decided. The article needs attention but there is a long history of diagnostic test development in commercial medicine and clinical application to justify keeping it and making a better article. --Zefr (talk) 21:40, 12 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 10:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmin murder case[edit]

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

The article about a crime has only one source. It may not be notable. Prod was declined because of Death Sentence. Death Sentences are not uncommon in Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and I would've closed it myself, it seems enough for an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 9 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. North America1000 22:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper geocode[edit]

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

Appears to be original research, with no evidence of notability, and no cites given, Brief web searching shows no other uses other than Wikipedia mirrors The Anome (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that America.Pink is a long-term problematic mirror. I've removed the CSD tag. Kuru (talk) 03:23, 4 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. North America1000 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MarkE Miller[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BIO. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


This Article is Original and has sources sited. It qualifies to be in wiki.

Anyone with an objection to state the objection and why he/she thinks it doe not qualify.

NOTE:- Note all articles being considered for deletion are deleted. 

Editor:-

Delete as fails WP:BIO, has no unaffiliated secondary sources. Dschslava (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for poor references and the clumsy defense presented above, indicative that someone has a personal stake in it per WP:OAS. Dkendr (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:BIO. Original poster: please see WP:BIO for the criteria we are talking about here. Note that this is a discussion solely about the article as it stands at this moment, not the person, and this AfD is in no way a criticism of the article's subject: moreover, if suitable cites that meet the WP:BIO criteria can be found, either now or in the future, the article can be either kept or recreated as appropriate. The (uncited) Advocate reference comes closest, but since the article cited is not primarily about the subject, would just narrowly miss meeting the citation criteria for establishing notability. -- The Anome (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per, as mentioned above, failure of WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The lack of third-party sources is the real problem, and I haven't been able to find any substantial enough to change my opinion. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 21:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Miller and his boyfriend are popular on social media, but the problem here is that being popular isn't something that gives notability on that basis alone. It's actually incredibly common for multiple YT personalities to fail notability guidelines, as mainstream sources tend to rarely cover them. When they do cover them, it tends to be of the "look at this video we found, isn't it funny/cute/terrible/etc" variety that isn't really considered to be in-depth coverage. My favorite example of how difficult it is to establish notability guidelines for YouTubers is PewDiePie. His article was repeatedly deleted up till March 2013, only months before he became the most subscribed person on YouTube, which gives you an idea of just how insanely hard it is to establish notability for social media personalities. Now Miller has received some mild coverage, but not really anything that's heavy enough to really be considered in-depth coverage. I tried finding coverage but there's just not much out there and I couldn't find anything to show that Miller was on the Advocates "40 under 40" list. Now the thing about him being associated with various acts and people is that being associated with someone isn't something that would automatically give notability on Wikipedia, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. To show that these associations would give notability you'd have to show where Miller has received a lot of coverage about him being active with the various people. Also, a notable person making a comment about or even appearing on the channel doesn't mean that this makes the channel notable. Like the associations, this would have to be covered in independent and reliable sources. Unfortunately, the article was reliant on links to YT channels and other places that Wikipedia would not consider to be a RS in this situation. I did find some coverage here and there, but it's not enough to establish notability and it seems that the most coverage centered on them breaking a world record in 2014, but unfortunately world records aren't considered to be a major accomplishment that would warrant a keep on that basis alone. They did appear in a documentary, but the documentary doesn't seem to have garnered enough coverage to where that'd be considered notability giving either. I have no problem with this being userfied and cultivated for the future, but right now it's just too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still not convincing of its own solidly notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 9 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 Underworld (band). (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza for Eggs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM on all counts. Article is an unsourced stub and unlikely to ever be more than that 11 years after "release" - assuming that word fits for a self published digital download. At best, merge to artist per WP:NALBUM Scr★pIronIV 15:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nothing suggesting the needed solid independent notability, and nothing suggesting improvements. SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Underworld (band) as a valid search term. Not finding significant coverage to qualify an article. North America1000 12:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Northamerica1000. It seems very unlikely that this album is noteworthy. Also, there are no references. OtterAM (talk) 12:49, 6 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 this is a week with enough comments and a convincing enough article (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley (2016 film)[edit]

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

Declined WP:PROD. Subject is obviously not notable per the general notability guidelines. —Wasell(T) 14:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an upcoming film. The article on The Express Tribune shows notability. There is no need to delete it and create it again when it is released.--Musa Talk  16:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  16:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
alt:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
co-producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: The Valley Movie Yumee Jang Alyy Khan Suchitra Pillai-Malik Samina Peerzada
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eagle Radio. MBisanz talk 10:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gordon (radio presenter)[edit]

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

This bio of a popular local radio announcer in Guildford has been a subject of contentious editing, with repeated placements of speedy deletion and proposed deletion tags. The sources are all local, and make a reasonable case that he is a legitimate local celebrity in Surrey but that there's insufficient coverage from outside his immediate local area to establish his notability for Wikipedia purposes. Given the continuing contentious edits it would be beneficial to decide this in the more orderly procedure of AfD. Arxiloxos (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt he is a celebrity in the local area. But, what about outside of this area? It's likely nobody has a clue who he is. Therefore, I agree with the deletion of this article. If, like some radio announcers, he was a big name who had moved to a local radio station after being a TV or national radio personality, then fine. Every local radio station has a personality who is well known to the broadcast patch but they shouldn't have an article if their not known outside of that area. 132.185.160.122 (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a time when presenting a breakfast show on an ILR automatically made you a very major local celebrity which would be quite enough to guarantee notability but, just like local newspapers, ILRs ain't what they used to be. I don't agree that having celebrity in a local area completely rules out the possibility of notability but it doesn't help. I do feel that the article fails to establish significant notability but it gets close so I'm not able to commit to a solid delete vote. He has done a little national TV and he has been in ILR for a very long time. I'll stay neutral for now and might revise this in the light of other arguments presented later. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for the following reasons:

  • On the 'subject of contentious editing' point, the article has been there for 8 years without any such issues until the last couple of weeks when there appears to have been an effort to delete the articles for Eagle Radio and anything associated with it.
  • On the 'insufficient coverage from outside his immediate local area' point, I agree that most of the sources are 'local' but neither WP:NOTABILITY nor WP:Reliable makes any distinction between local, national and international sources. Clearly the line has to be drawn somewhere or else everybody would be a celebrity in the context of their own street - but the combined population of Surrey and Hampshire is about 2.4 million which is larger than the population of Northern Ireland (1.8 million) and not far short of the population of Wales (3 million), not to mention being larger than several European countries. So the 'local' designation, while I don't disagree with the adjective, creates a misleading impression of the size and nature of the area where he is a household name.
  • It was established that Eagle Radio is notable and it surely follows that the extent and nature of its engagement with the community in its broadcast area is a topic that can be documented. That documentation would be incomplete without an explanation of Peter Gordon's high personal profile in the community, which extends beyond his role as a radio presenter as explained in the article.
  • It is easy to find other articles for radio presenters which contain no mention at all of being known outside of a particular city or state - at very least this article does show that the subject has appeared on national television and has been mentioned in a national newspaper. (I'm sure somebody will suggest that those other articles should be deleted too - but I'm just saying...) Eggybacon (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted on the wiki article, this war is becoming ridiculous. The discussion on the articles for deletion isn't solving anything. As far as I'm concerned, the presenter is NOT a celebrity, apart from in the local area. You say the page has been up for 8 years, Wiki are cutting back on non-notable people who have articles. It would appear Eggybacon is getting very worked up about this argument and it would appear to anyone he is either Peter Gordon himself or a fan who thinks he is worthy of an article. He is NOT notable enough to warrant an article. The links about panto don't really prove his is notable or worthy of an article because hundreds of thousands of people have been in panto, but not all of them deserve a wiki page. Therefore, I would agree that this is a cause for deletion. 132.185.161.122 (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody is disputing that his celebrity status is confined to a particular area (albeit one with the population of a small country) - the question is more about whether that matters? As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm not going to be baited into exchanging ad hominems. Eggybacon (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you're getting so uptight when it's suggested this article has no relevance. If he was on TV or a national radio station, understandable. Take a look at Wiki guidelines on what counts as notable. I might appear in panto myself and make an article about myself! 132.185.160.130 (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you - that does not mean I am "getting uptight", "getting very worked up", or any of the other things you keep saying about me. Could we please keep this civil? As already noted above, there is nothing in WP:NOTABILITY about subjects or the sources that mention them needing to be of "national" importance so which 'Wiki guideline' do you mean? Eggybacon (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious. I do agree though. It should be removed 78.40.158.54 (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article with Eagle Radio? Then put a ref to PG on the stations article perhaps? RadioAnorakUK (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If merging with Eagle Radio would make people happy, sure. I have no particular attachment to the information being on its own page. Eggybacon (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an agreement all? It will certainly stop the edit wars. Not only that, but Eagle Radio doesn't have many refs at the moment and there's a question over the amount of sources so merging PG with Eagle Radio might be a good move. I won't lie, I haven't a clue how to do that as I'm still getting to grips with Wiki. Can anybody advise? RadioAnorakUK (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rush to close this discussion. AfD discussions generally run for at least a week, and the fresh-eyed input of previously uninvolved editors can be highly useful. This discussion has not yet even been posted on any subject-based lists: I will post it on a few. So, while a merge may well be in order here (since Gordon seems to be the best known personality at the station), I think we should wait until the discussion is actually closed to effect the result. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My take on it is that if he was more notable nationally he would deserve an article. The point remains he is only a celebrity in the local area and if you don't listen to the local radio station, you wouldn't have a clue who he was. Otherwise, I agree merging this with Eagle Radio will be a good idea. 132.185.160.126 (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best, my searches have found nothing better and the article is still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:10, 9 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. Spam Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YallaShop[edit]

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

You check this themselves: No wikilinks, no references. Simply create a new. ... Lhealt (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very new company with no significant independent coverage. EricEnfermero (Talk) 14:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have in mind?--... Lhealt (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedied for third time as spam and salted. No attempt to change tone or add references, non-notable anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sushil Pandey[edit]

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

No wiki links. No references. No external links. In my opinion, this article text was a copied. ... Lhealt (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I not say, that this article was a copied. I just think so, but that does not mean that it is.--... Lhealt (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural Close. Speedy Deleted (non-admin closure) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipage:Herman Cortex[edit]

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

How to understand Wikipage:Herman Cortex? ... Lhealt (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--... Lhealt (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt[reply]
Speedy delete. Duplicate of Hernán Cortés. noq (talk) 13:49, 2 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 Procedural Close. Speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narendrapur Helping Hand[edit]

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

Aren't wiki-links. Aren't references, external links. "I try to contribute to Wikipedia." There may be a advertising nature. ... Lhealt (talk) 13:31, 2 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) GSS (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Codex Turicensis[edit]

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

Not stylish. Aren't wiki-links. Aren't references, external links. In my opinion, text was a copied. ... Lhealt (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Please improve the style.

External links are. Wiki-links too. Don't delete the text. --Passauer Andreas (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Lhealt: "Not stylish" is not a valid reason for deletion. If the article needs to be improved, improve it. If the article lacks referecnes, find some. Articles should only be deleted if they fail to meet the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will ask the psychological question: I have made the article without references, without the wiki links, without external links, without anything, and it will take two years. Do not delete?--... Lhealt (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)Lhealt[reply]
  • Speedy keep: A WP:BEFORE check of Google Books locates sufficient references to this book over a long period. AllyD (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copy vio of An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the description in this article is similar to the cited source, it is not a close enough paraphrase to qualify as a copyright violation. (There really are only so many ways one can describe this particular document.) The document itself is clearly notable as a much studied early Biblical text. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Manuscript is obviously notable, cf. all the sources that can be found as AllyD notes. I was contemplating closing this per SNOW, but I'm glad I took a closer look at Mangoe's remark. WikiDan61, almost every word of this article was verbatim identical to
  • Henry Barclay Swete; Henry St. John Thackeray (8 April 2010). An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek: With an Appendix Containing the Letter of Aristeas. Cambridge University Press. pp. 142–. ISBN 978-1-108-00758-0.
I have removed the copy-vio. Sam Sailor Talk! 16:07, 3 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. The history of an article does not need to be deleted if WP:TNTing is desired. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moro conflict[edit]

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

Starting this AfD per discussion on the talk page of the article. As stated by multiple users, including @Nick-D and Arquenevis:, this article has significant POV issues, and is written in a non-neutral manner. While the arrangement is not un-notable, the proposal of this AfD is to delete per WP:TNT with the support of the community, to create a more neutral article which does not attempt to point fingers at any of the sides of the conflict. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Arquenevis engaged in massive abuse of inline cleanup tags, falsely tagging information sourced by reliable sources and then proceeded to falsely claim that the sources in question were "blogs" run by "Moro groups" and that it was "partisan". Is this a "blog" run by a "Moro group"? There was no consensus on the talk page for deletion. In fact RightCowLeftCoast was the only person who suggested AfD. Rajmaan (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This line: "The root of the conflict originates in the Spanish and American wars against the Moros" is not neutral. There is a conflict, it cast the Moros as victims. This among many other lines cast this article from the POV of the Moros and it is not written neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a number of questionable POV problem points made in the article. The article itself engages in fingerpointing and a number of sources themselves fail to keep in line with WP:RS rules. As an example: "The problem in Mindanao have been rooted since the arrival of Spanish to the Moro areas."
Many of the sources linked are self-published material, partisan, and/or fail to contain key points suggested in the article. There are rules on Wikipedia against self-published media as stated on WP:RS
Furthermore, there are also attempts to use language to mask biased opinions by lifting editorials. This is an inappropriate use of an intext attribution :
"The Moro National Liberation Front published an open letter to the United States President Barack Hussein Obama and demanded to know why America is supporting what they described as Philippine colonialism against the Moro Muslim people and the Filipino "war of genocide" and atrocities against Moros, reminding Obama that the Moro people have resisted and fought against the atrocities of Filipino, Japanese, American, and Spanish invaders, and reminding Obama of past war crimes also committed by American troops against Moro women and children like the Moro Crater massacre at Bud Dajo.[135]
"The Moro National Liberation Front accused the Philippines, Japan, America, and Spain of conspiring against the Moros and recounted their invasions, imperialism, and atrocities against the Moros and demanded that they end the current colonization against the Moro people, the MNLF recounted that the Spanish were greedy colonizers, that the Americans committed massacres of Moro children and women at Mount Bagsak and Bud Dajo, and that the Japanese "exhibited tyranny, cruelty and inhumanity at its lowest level", and "had to suffer their worst defeat and highest death mortality at the hands of the Bangsamoro freedom fighters", demanding an apology from Japan for crimes committed against the Moros.[136]"
"The Moro National Liberation Front questioned the humanity and morality of the Philippines, Japan, America, and Spain, noting that they have done nothing to end the colonialism and war inflicted upon the Moros and reminded them that they have resisted and fought against Japanese, American, and Spanish atrocities and war crimes while the Filipinos surrendered to the invaders, the MNLF brought up the massacre committed by American troops at Bud Dajo against Moro women and children and stated that compared to the Japanese casualty rate in the Visayas and Luzon, the amount of Japanese imperialists slaughtered by the Moro freedom fighters was greater by the thousands and that there was no capitulation like the "Fall of Bataan" to the Japanese by the Moros while the Luzon Filipinos submitted.[137] The MNLF said that the Japanese, American, and Spanish cruelty has been continued by Filipino rule.[138]"
In my defense, you are skewing what I wrote and presenting a strawman here User:Rajmaan. I never even talked about the link you provided specifically so that point is moot. Here is what I wrote:
"Pushing an agenda on Wikipedia is certainly unacceptable. Much of the article is clearly written from a partisan view and much of what is written lacks a neutral, balanced tone. Attempts have been made to abuse the page in order to fingerpoint at certain factions which is in direct violation of WP:NPOV. The article features questionable sources many of which link to blogs or pages prepared by Moro groups. Again partisan sources are not objectively verifiable and are certainly not neutral. At times, the sources in question may not even indicate the gravity of the claims being described which makes them dubious sources. This also leads me to believe that an agenda is definitely being pushed in order to twist the message of the citations given. Prior to edits by some concerned Wikipedia editors, this article also featured a number of gramatical errors, some of which are still present in the article, which makes the article lack a proper academic tone. There are even a few instances of copy-paste which is not acceptable. Furthermore many claims are made without any citations. Much of the article needs to be purged and reconstructed from scratch to keep up with WP:NPOV and WP:RS rules. Validity of the information presented in the article is also in question and sentences with unsourced or poorly sourced information will also need to be deleted."
Furthermore, there are rules on WP:RS and WP:NPOV against the use of self published sources, including but not limited to self - published papers, blogs, or a speech made by someone as they are not always reliable, neutral or objective. --Arquenevis (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Much of what is written in the article is indeed partisan and attempts to promote an agenda. Moreover, the article has a very strong propaganda style of tone which is inappropriate for the discourse expected in Wikipedia. I have taken issue with a number of sources listed here and some of these fail to even verify points suggested in the article or are dubious. With all due respect, user:Rajmaan, I am sure that even you will admit that you are guilty of leaning towards a certain side here and you have been using the Talk page as a repository for partisan links. --Arquenevis (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So three paragraphs at the end of the article which are less than 10% of the article are the reason why you want to delete most of the article and also explain why you tagged entire sections reliably sourced content on false promises.Rajmaan (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be facetious here. Obviously these are just some examples of a much wider problem with the article as a whole. I made no 'promises' on anything. If you can recall, the revisions of the article in the first quarter of 2016 were riddled with grammatical errors and even worse, a number of statements and paragraphs lacked citations or failed to properly cite directly what was suggested in the article. These problems alone do not even include or touch on problems with the reliability of the sources or the overall POV problems with the article. I concede that some of the cleanup tags I edited could have been reduced to no more than 1 or 2 per sentence. However, these were definitely not without merit. Though the current edition has slightly improved, the article still retains many of these aforementioned problems. This is why I strongly recommend purging the article and reconstruct it free from bias towards any group involved, especially groups with a political agenda at stake here. Unfortunately this issue is not a first: similar deletions had to be committed on related Wikipedia pages for this very reason. --Arquenevis (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Most of the sources provided are quite reliable, and most of the information is quite neutral. A real fix would be to remove any broken links, and to find other reliable sources to back up information originally provided from them. GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 01:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link was missing an f at the end. I fixed it. Rajmaan (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:TNT. At present this article is a total mess, and deleting it and rebuilding it would be the best option. Alternately, the article should be reduced to a stub, and be rebuilt. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, as per WP:TNT and due to severe WP:NPOV violations I support purging the article and having it reconstructed. Secondly I recommend having experts look into this topic matter immediately. --Arquenevis (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re-build it first. Baking Soda (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. tag appropriately, re-write with expert attention. Baking Soda (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Baking Soda (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Baking Soda (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am strongly in favor of deletion for the following reasons:
First: Contrary to popular belief expressed by some here, a lack of notability is not the only criterion for AfD on Wikipedia. In general there are 4 pillars that inform deletion policy on Wikipedia: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). While the page passes the notability policy, it definitely and severely violates WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. Even worse, the article as a whole reads as a propaganda piece. To some extent it may qualify as an attack page which is grounds for deletion: It has a strong partisan tone that favors a certain group and agenda that directly engages and disparages other groups by means of fingerpointing, demonizing, and tries to play the victim card.


As yet another sorry example shows, take a look at this:


The Philippine government encouraged Filipino Christian settlers in Mindanao to form militias called Ilaga (rat[71]) to fight the Moros. The Ilaga engaged in massacres and atrocities and were responsible for the Manili massacre of 65 Moro Muslim civilians in a mosque in June 1971, including women and children.[72] The Ilaga allegedly also engaged in cannibalism, cutting off the body parts of their victims to eat in rituals.[73] Due to these and other actions, the Ilaga settlers were given the sarcastic acronym of the "Ilonggo Land Grabbers' Association".[74][75]


This is clearly a propaganda piece meant to vilify and insult another group. None of the sources are reliable or even describe what the paragraph states in detail. They consist of a Youtube video, blogs, and a prepared speech that is partisan in nature - none of which pass WP:RS policies.
Per Wikipedia rules, attack pages must be deleted.
Second: I need to clarify that none of us who are in favor of deletion support deleting the article permanently. Every one of us here, both in favor of deletion or keeping the page, are interested in keeping the page free from partisan interests. However those in favor of deletion like myself see it necessary to start over per WP:TNT and WP:NORESCUE.
Third: This page and similar topics have been the subject of numerous "shotgun" edits by a number of suspicious individuals who may have strong personal or political stakes in the issue resulting in a lopsided article. Hence it is necessary to delete the page and start over in order to remove the page from all its prior associations so that the page may NEVER be reverted. Deleting the page and removing it from its former associations is crucial and the most pressing issue here.
Fourth: I would like to appeal to those who have chosen to "Keep" the page to reconsider the greater implications of your decision. Take into consideration that rebuilding the page is going to be a tremendously monumental task given the current state the page is in. Even worse, since this page attracts partisan interests, there is a strong possibility that any changes made to edit and clean the page will be lost as the page can be reverted easily by individuals who have a political stake in the article. We cannot allow this. WP:NORESCUE highly suggests that in such circumstances it is best to delete the page and start from scratch and remove it from its former associations.
To quote WP:NORESCUE:
"This sort of attempt at misleading the reader can often be identified at Articles for Deletion. Horrifyingly, though, some people don't care, and instead insist the article should be kept, even when the entire article is demonstrably full of such attempts to mislead, and thus cannot be trusted, in the idea that other people should, once again, fix the problems they don't want to do the work to fix. This is wrong. Neutral Point of View is a core policy, and if the article has no redeeming merits, then the mere theoretical idea that a (completely different) article could be written on the subject which would be acceptable under Wikipedia policy is not an argument to keep."


Consider that this page has been around for a long time and is in prime position to misinform people. It is ALWAYS worse to have an article on a notable subject that has a slant or is misleading than to not have on at all. (See WP:NORESCUE) To consider keeping the article is to violate Wikipedia's core policies. --Arquenevis (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a sentence which contravenes Wikipedia policy, it can easily be removed by a neutral editor without having to delete the entire article. Its strange how a total of three sentences are justification for deleting the entire article.Rajmaan (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is such a thing as arbitration, page protection, and other measures that can be taken by neutral admins to halt those who they deem as breaking WP policy from editing articles. Your reasoning for deleting the article and its entire history is facetious. If such a topic attracts partisan interests then all the parties will keep coming back no matter how many times the article is deleted.Rajmaan (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not believe that a propaganda page is exactly the same thing as an attack page. I might be willing to do something to this article too since I managed to somewhat fix the Moro National Liberation Front. The references of this article seem fine, and it could be rewritten just by using them. How about just making this article a nice and sane stub instead of deleting it completely to preserve the references? A lot of these Moro-articles seem to have been tainted by Nur Misuari's fanboys despite the fact that no-one really even supports him. The Moro conflict article is nothing special in that regard. Ceosad (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe certain editors want to wipe out WP:RS sources found in the article and its history. There is no other reason for deletion. The entire argument of partisan editors reverting reeks of bunk and drivel since there is such a thing that administrators have called page protection, plus a neutral arbitration committee can sanction and topic ban people and three revert rule means that chronic reverters will eventually get permanently banned if they edit war.Rajmaan (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current form, Keep as a summary style article. Push the sections out to detail articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:12, 9 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. MBisanz talk 10:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Shark (2017 film)[edit]

The Shark (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable future film that has not yet begun filming, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 11:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note this account has now been removed of their abilities since it is connected to the user Xqlusivevevan (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xqlusivevan). SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete or draftify as the article itself tells us it "is scheduled to begin on June 13th, 2016 in Greensboro, North Carolina", we can wait until filming is confirmed and resurrect IF production receives coverage. Schmidt, Michael Q. 19:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NFILM recommends that we don't have articles on films which haven't commenced principal photography, and according to the article this one hasn't. It's far from certain that the film will actually be made as the film's producers are trying to raise funds for it on Kickstarter, and the sourcing appears to be extremely thin. Hut 8.5 21:54, 11 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. Consensus is for article retention. Discussion about a potential name change can continue on the article talk page if desired. North America1000 21:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Involvement in the East Timor Invasion[edit]

Australian Involvement in the East Timor Invasion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

By the creator's own omission ([22], [23]), this article was created as a WP:POVFORK from the Paul Keating article after badly sourced and biased material concerning the former Australian Prime Minister was rejected there (the discussion of this is at Talk:Paul Keating#Removed "Controversy over East Timor" section and content). This material has been included in this article instead, along with other material providing a highly biased account of history (eg, a strong implication that the Fraser Government's focus "was ignoring the issue of human rights"). While the topic of Australia's relations with Indonesia concerning East Timor is notable, this article is fundamentally biased and was created in bad faith to repeat slurs against a living person which had been rejected from their article and should be deleted per WP:TNT and WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup and rename. This is a massive subject that is well-covered in all sorts of sources going back to the 1970s, and one that we should have had an article on a long time ago. The article needs some serious work, and I definitely agree that the author is way too biased to helpfully contribute here, but WP:TNT is massive overkill and the fifty reliable sources in this article is well and truly enough to sketch out the basis of a decent treatment of this topic. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The content of this article should be merged with the Australia East Timor relations article since it covers very similar territory. (Pardon the pun.)Knobbly (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • KeepThe article has changed and improved since it's nomination for deletion and I recognise that the content is focused on the historical aspects of Australi's involvement rather than it's current relationship with East Timor.Knobbly (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely disagree: this is much more about Australian relations with Indonesia than East Timor, and stuff about interactions with different governments before East Timorese independence would be wildly off-topic for that article - which has more than enough material on its actual subject. Not only do they not cover similar territory, they shouldn't even particularly overlap, except to the extent that that article covers the aftermath of this one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also disagree (talk)This is more about Australian relations with Indonesia, the differences between internal governments, and in fact how the public saw the issue. It's really only related to Australia - East Timor relations to a minor degree.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. There is a great deal of writing on this topic, and frankly I am sort of surprised there is not an article already (considering there are at least 5 books and 3 government reports on this topic). Apart from that, I am the author, and in countering Nick-D, of course I did create the article as a partial fork, because to put any more content about East Timor in the Paul Keating page, would have been a WP:UW issue, so it was more appropriate in a general article on the topic, and in fact I was warned *against* including any East Timor material in the Keating article here in this pleasantry ([24]) because of WP:UW. However, as is obvious, the article has equal covereage to all the prime ministers involved during this period, in fact Keating's section is one of the smallest. As for the article "created in bad faith to repeat slurs against a living person" ??? what the?????Nick-D if there is something that is in there you think is unfair or untrue about Paul Keating, simply feel free to take it out. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep No evidence to support the nom's assertions that "this article is fundamentally biased and was created in bad faith to repeat slurs against a living person", namely Paul Keating. Article is very well-sourced to academic texts, reports and other documents. Seems to me like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT AusLondonder (talk) 06:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article is well referenced to reliable sources so WP:GNG is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am submitting this to WP:GA and working on the Australian public's reaction to the Timor Invasion section, if anyone knows about that, please feel free to add to that part. The content for the rest is pretty good, now. Cheers! To be honest, I don't think there is any reason for this article to be nominated for AfD and I think it's probably a waste of people's time being here... but anyways....Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless POV and article title issues can be resolved. StAnselm (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentSt - actually the title was discussed by a number of users, and a new title was agreed on, it will be changed if the article gets through AFD - you can see the discussion and the new title here ([25]) In terms of the NPOV, I've now removed the section (about Fraser) mentioned above by the nominator for the AfD. There's been quite a few changes made to the article since it was submitted here - I think it would be great if people could identify if there are still any particular outstanding NPOV issues?, they can easily be removed Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I (not the author) proposed Australia and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor because it needs to encompass a lot more than about the original invasion (this needs to and does cover events more than twenty years after!), and more than just government policy towards it (for instance, I've just been reading some books about Australian activists' interactions with the resistance movement). The amended title has been agreed to on the talk page and I can move it as soon as this is done. It needs a solid cleanup but it's hardly WP:TNT-worthy and there's no point doing a prose rewrite with an AfD tag hanging over its head because it's a fairly long article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Drover's Wife If you do find some more content on the Australian public involvement with East Timor groups, please feel free to add it to that section ([26])... I haven't been able to find much. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead seems to have been written by someone who thinks the invasion was a Bad Thing. This is precisely what we mean by POV - not the opinion of the editor, but that it shows through in the writing. In particular, the sentence "Australia assisted the Indonesian military with training and materiel, even while human rights abuses were occurring and the Indonesian military was implicated in massacres". This sounds like original synthesis - it is linking the assistance with the abuse in a way that suggests complicity. This may well have been the case - but it will need to be properly cited and discussed. The lead is a very poor one - it does not actually summarise what's in the article, and nothing in the sentence I quoted seems to be in the article body. (I have no idea how anyone can think this is even coming to close to GA!) This is related to the title problem - it sounds like there was military assistance in the invasion itself. StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for this feedback, StAnselm (talk). As mentioned already, the Title change was discussed on the talk page, and the title will be changed after the AfD proceess. The Drover's Wife suggesting Australia and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. In terms of the NPOV material, I have gone through now and removed anything that appeared to be NPOV, and made sure everything has references. If you spot any unreferenced material that is a concern, or can point out any specific NPOV issues, please mention them and they can be dealt with. Once again, thanks so much for all your feedback. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, thanks. Yes, that's a lot better. In light of that, I am happy to change my !vote keep. StAnselm (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • (The only remaining issue is the mention of Australian assistance; on what basis do we say this is relevant to the occupation?) StAnselm (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahh, ok the Australian assistance in the lead para? Ok, I can see how this may be seen as an improper synthesis, and in any case, not sure the lead para is the place for detail on it - I take your point, I've removed it. It possibly belongs in more detail and an explanation of proper context in the body of the article rather than the lead in any case. Thanks once again StAnselm (talk), I think all the NPOV issued anyone can see are dealt with now. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • StAnselm (talk If the NPOV issues are addressed now, do you mind if I remove the NPOV tag? Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Almost. Last point: Did East Timor "gain" or "regain" its sovereignty in 2002? Maybe we should just say "gain its independence". StAnselm (talk) 04:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Gain its independence" works for me - it dodges an issue about the recognition of the 1974 government. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hmmm... "I would have said regains its independance". I'm not 100% sure of the legal definition of an independant nation, but Portugal had lost interest in East Timor and moved to decolonise it's colonies, and after Fretilin defeated the UDT coup (who mostly fled), they made a unilateral declaration of independence on 28 November 1975, of the Democratic Republic of East Timor. 6 Countries recognised them as independent. Indonesia invaded soon after on the 7th of December. So only independent for 10 days...but still independant! Deathlibrarian (talk)
Which means a lot did not. And Australia was the only one to recognise the annexation, so for 25 years most countries still officially regarded it as Portuguese. StAnselm (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True, most didn't, and Portugal actually didn't either I think. However, as I said, I don't know actually what legally/technically qualifies a country to be an independent nation?? Is there some sort of conditions a country has to meet? Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if consensus cannot be obtained at either of these points, WP:TNT may be the best option. (That is, start a new article about Australia and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor.) StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:ESSAY! MPS1992 (talk) 21:07, 4 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.

Arm & Hammer Forgings[edit]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7 by User:Y. (non-admin closure) JWNoctistalk to me 16:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Virtually the only sources seem to be company pages and their social media accounts, plus listings of similar companies. ww2censor (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No sign of significance or notability, despite article existing for more than two years. JWNoctistalk 13:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Silly, a page for a small business... not notable Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing at all for any notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 9 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. MBisanz talk 10:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dzarma Bata[edit]

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

Contested Prod with no reason given.Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The Cambodian league is not listed as fully-professional, so for the time being this article is not notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:07, 2 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. MBisanz talk 10:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Brielle[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. PROD removed by an IP with only one edit this year AusLondonder (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claim of notability per WP:PORNBIO. A search yielded some in-house girl-of-the-month awards/nominations. Also fails GNG. Reliable source coverage lacks depth and is focused on a minor event. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources so does not pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not solidly notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the coverage received by this woman according to sources in this article is comparable to many female biographies which have survived AfD. SSTflyer 09:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, I think this amount of coverage is enough for this to pass WP:GNG. (copied verbatim from article) SSTflyer 05:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for how the coverage is focused on one event: WP:BLP1E requires all three criteria to be met, and criterion 2 is not met because Summer Brielle, an actress, is not a low-profile individual. SSTflyer 05:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether you are serious or not? Warning signs that you are not - showing us sources from the Daily Star, referring to a pornstar as an "actress" AusLondonder (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails both PORNBIO and the GNG. The articles about the comments from stupid fans doesn't have enough much about her life and career and is more clickbait type coverage. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 03:27, 12 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. Overall consensus is for article retention. The notion of potentially renaming and repurposing the article to focus upon the legal case can continue to be discussed on the article talk page if desired. North America1000 22:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Provan[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTOBITUARY, tThis article gives no indication of its subject's notability apart from his having been supposedly the first lawyer to make a case based on a certain law that was passed (we probably do not have articles on the equivalent lawyer's for 99.999% of all laws that have been used in court cases) and does not cite any sources. It is also written like an obituary ("He is survived by his daughter, Michelle (age 22)"), which makes me suspect either that its author knew the subject and wished to immortalize them on Wikipedia, or copy-pasted it from a newspaper obituary, and I don't know which is a better argument for deletion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not rename and rewrite the article to be about the event rather than a biographical article? Most of the sources you added are about the legal case and either don't mention Provan at all or only mention his name once or twice, and two of the ones that are about him don't give us any significant biographical coverage beyond the fact that he was a polio survivor. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean creating Rogers v. CIGNA Healthcare of Texas? You have to talk to "WikiProject Law" people about articles about separate legal cases. I guess it must be a really high-profile case. As a layman, I don't see much coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "it must be a really high-profile case" do you mean "it would need to be a really high-profile case (in order to get its own Wikipedia article)" or "I think this probably is a really high-profile case"? Modal verbs are confusing as hell. Anyway, if he is only notable for that one event, and that one event doesn't meet GNG, then logically how on earth could he meet GNG...? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, unfinished sentence. My intention was your first guess. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The NOTOBITUARY argument is nonsense because we have a section on the main page specifically for recent deaths. This person clearly made a difference, was covered adequately in reliable sources and so there's no reason for us to delete these facts. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine -- how about "NOTMEMORIAL"? The article as I nominated it was an unsourced piece about what a wonderful man he was and was taken before his time. And even now it is essentially unsourced as a biography and should be probably be at least moved to a different title and rewritten to be about the only event for which he is notable. And rather than criticizing my delete rationale based on a philosophical interpretation of something on the main page, you should read this and help us figure out the mystery of the title blacklist that only affects some autoconfirmed users and not others. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A clear case of WP:1E. Paragraph 2 gives an exception: the event be "highly significant". I don't see how a layer's witticism is highly significant, unless explicitly declared so in WP:RS. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Staszek Lem: I don't know if you understood me, but when I mentioned WP:1E it was not for the purpose of validating this articles subject as he already meets WP:BASIC by the WP:RS sources The Wall Street Journal, Houston Chronicle and American Bar Association that were written about him and sourced in this article. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Picomtn: You appear to be new to this, so I will explain: WP:1E is more commonly cited as a rationale in favour of deletion and/or merging, so your comment citing 1E above in defense of this article remaining as is was actually a bit confusing for me. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hijiri88: Actually I was aware of this, but decided to bring this issue up before anyone else did so it could more fully discussed here. Also, thank you so much for your nomination for deletion of this article, otherwise it wouldn't have been found, and improved, by those like me. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if bringing it up before anyone else was your goal, you were two hours late. And thank you for thanking me. As I said elsewhere, the article was essentially an orphan (only being linked to from the disambig page Provan). I found it by accident when trying to figure out if this author had a Wikipedia article. :P Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Hi @Hijiri88: (cc @Hijiri88:@DESiegel:@Checkingfax:@Sainsf:) I'm not really sure about the NOTOBITUARY issue you're discussing, but it simply doesn't apply to this article I believe. Please allow me to explain. Going with the fact that WP has become a major primary/secondary research tool (Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia)[1] for students that even Harvard University admits[2] can be used for basic research. I believe it's necessary for us to understand articles such as this in their most expansive context. For example, anyone doing ADA research would find this article invaluable as it pertains the history/genesis of lawsuits against it, most particularly due to its David v. Goliath aspects as it regards this articles subject. What are your thoughts. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already specified that I'm not interested in discussing whether obituaries are allowed on Wikipedia, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL is pretty clear, and until your recent edit (which essentially constitutes OR, synthesizing this biographical article with a lot of content on the one event for which this person is known that isn't directly relevant to this biography) the article was unambiguously an obituary for the guy. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hijiri88: I'm confused by your WP:OR comment as I did no new analysis, or synthesis, of the published material about this articles subject. In fact, no OR was even needed as what these sources said is exactly what was put into my rewrite of this article, and as anyone can plainly see. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to pad an article out with material on related topics gleaned from a variety of sources that either don't mention or barely mention the main topic is IMO a form of OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hijiri88: Can you cite just one example of this being in this article please? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is becoming TLDR, so I don't want to respond any more, and I think you will agree, so please don't ping me again and keep any more comments as brief as possible. This source lists his name briefly along with a bunch of others; this source doesn't appear to mention him at all; ditto this source; and this; and this as well. Therefore, any material taken from any of these five sources is not directly relevant to Provan's biography and does nothing to demonstrate his independent notability. That's almost half of the article (5/11 of your sources) that is essentially WP:SYNTH. Your obscure citation style makes it extremely difficult to establish which material you took from which source, so number-crunching is the best I can do without a greater time sink than I am willing to give this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Now that I think of it, the two obituaries and the Texas State Bar also don't help the GNG/BIO1E case, and the three remaining sources all being news pieces from 1999-2000 seems to demonstrate that Provan is only notable for one event, and so the event, not the man, should be the one with an independent article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hijiri88: If you're refereing to the sources linked to "have been cited in other court cases since", they are a Wikipedia:Consensus issue I've addressed in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law#Robert Provan and Talk:Robert Provan#Review and legal expert help needed as legal expert guidance is needed here. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already asked you to stop pinging me. And yes, if you say "it has been cited in other court cases since" and cite those court cases yourself, that is textbook OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Maybe I'm missing some crucial points, but it seems like if we have a case of WP:1E, the next logical question is whether it can be turned into an article about that one event (the case) -- or whether it already exists. I see it's come up a few times, but most arguments are still about the BLP. Is there strong opposition to turning this into an article about the case? Doing so would benefit from, but is not dependent upon, folks from WikiProject Law, who can always renominate the case article if it's inappropriate. Seems like the best option to keep the content without keeping the biography. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rhododendrites: Can, or should, a legal case be separated from its originating attorney is the first question I asked myself about this articles subject. The answer I came up with (following WP:BASIC) was yes due to the unique aspect of this attorney having a childhood disease thus allowing him to view the issue(s) presented to him in a context different than any of his peers. Remember, the ADA had been law for 6 years and no other attorney, in the entire US, had even contemplated such a novel (NYT word, not mine) lawsuit. How many other examples are there of attorneys, such as this one, who changed things due to their viewing something through the prism of their unique life history and experience, one might ask. So, I can absolutely envision a future dissertation (or other such academic paper) being written about attorneys such as this one (and there are many of them) making this articles subject, I believe, important to be included here. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep with a tentative preference to Rename the article to be about the case, following the guidelines at WP:1E, and pending responses to my question above. The sources are in many cases about him, and when a person is profiled in several major publications it becomes less clear whether it's the person or the event that should have an article. WP:1E says we should default to the incident, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There are now two solid references to support his notability. I am sure there are a couple of more to even bolster his notability and to allow expansion of the already adequate article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sources if you look for them; I've just added another to support the claim that he was an assistant attorney general for Texas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncomfortable Keep: There's appears to be enough sourcing out there to have some article, though expert care is sorely needed since the current one looks like it's possibly incorrect. There's two relevant cases -- Zamora... is from 1998 and Rogers... from 2001 -- and some sources (eg: the WSJ and Texmed) refer to the former. Can change vote to Uncomfortable Redirect if the latter case is agreed to be a continuation of the former, with the two incorporated into the one case article. Even if that could be done, however, BIO1E is a guideline and a separate BIO article could be kept if it's the cleanest implementation. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 13:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hydronium Hydroxide You are correct that Zamora came first, and I've changed the articles section name to reflect this and added sources and changed the content wording to reflect this too. As for firmly connecting Zamora and Rogers, I'm still working on this issue and it's going to take a while as there are many pages of legal documents I'm still reading through. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.socialsciencespace.com/2014/03/is-wikipedia-really-such-a-bad-research-tool-for-students/
  2. ^ http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376
  • Keep and make changes however needed, this seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 9 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 List of tallest buildings in Italy. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torre San Vincenzo[edit]

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

Totally unsourced article without any indication of notability. It's a large office building, and that's it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Genoa, or perhaps Weak Keep, because the Italian Wikipedia seems to have a sizable article on this building - however, I can't read Italian so it may be an article on another building with the same name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheepythemouse (talk • contribs) 01:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it certainly appears to be the same building as the Italian Wikipedia has an article on, but I wouldn't call it "sizeable": it's under 2Kb! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My knowledge of Italian is rudimentary, but even so it is adequate to convince me that this article is an only slightly shortened version of the Italian Wikipedia one - the differences seem to consist of a couple more names for the building, one not very substantial reference and links to other Wikipedia articles which actually work. The building was not the tallest even in Genoa when built, so unless being over 100 metres in height for a building from before 1970 is automatically notable, I am not currently seeing any reason to keep. PWilkinson (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's nothing at least minimally better for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No convincing reason to merge, and none of the content is sourced. Nothing much found from a web search to indicate that the building is notable enough. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC) Support redirect per Cavarrone below. --Michig (talk) 05:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of tallest buildings in Italy, there are a few results in Google Books but they are only visible as snippets so they are difficult to evaluate. Possibly notable, possibly not, for now a redirect to the relevant list (where Torre San Vincenzo is 29th) seems a reasonable solution. Cavarrone 05:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be reasonable, although the entry in that list also appears to be unsourced. --Michig (talk) 05:48, 3 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 Austin Independent School District. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 09:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Lee Elementary School (Austin, Texas)[edit]

Robert E. Lee Elementary School (Austin, Texas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS; no potential for lasting notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to local school district Austin Independent School District per norm. The school is not notable. The recent news coverage is simply because members of the public suggested some controversial names in an internet poll. The school district quickly came up with a shortlist of 8 non-controversial names https://www.austinisd.org/announcements/committee-announces-eight-names-renaming-lee-elementary-school. Trump's not on the list, and neither is Hitler. Meters (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect per Meters CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, this is descending into trolling. GABHello! 12:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the local school district. The renaming, and the on-line trolling regarding the renaming, is not of any note. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might be a good idea to delete this, and then recreate as a redirect. If not we need to rewrite it before redirecting to ensure that the history has a balanced and accurate version of events. I didn't want to bother trying to add sanity to the trolling but now that the article creator is indef'ed... Meters (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 9 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 08:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kahan[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Quis separabit? 02:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not compelling for any applicable notability including for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for prominent roles , about 4th to 6th billing in notable films such as Lethal Weapon 3,and 4,Conspiracy Theory and Assassins, passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That can be said for several actors but that is not going to actually imrpvoe the article which it needs, something that can also be said of several other actors articles. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to suggest Keep for now if it means this can be closed for now, with an actual consensus. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 9 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. MBisanz talk 10:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pit (BBS door)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 20:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:00, 2 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. MBisanz talk 11:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Balli[edit]

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

Article 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 19:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar 19:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability, too soon at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Well the guy does have a Italian wiki page also, might be more notable then we think? I'll just hold my vote. Wgolf (talk) 02:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having a page in another language in itself doesn't signify anything, especially when it is similarly lacking secondary sources to assert its notability... czar 12:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We care about sustained coverage (significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?)) so the small Wire blurb and passing mentions in Vice aren't substantial enough to warrant keeping a page that would rely on primary sources for basic details. And based on your recent edits, I'll just remind that we ask editors to declare any potential conflicts of interest, if indeed you have any relation to the artist/label czar 00:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no Wiki editor and I'm here to learn. I'm a dj, a big fan of Sonic Belligeranza records for sure (not only dj Balli but also other artists released on the label). Regarding The Wire , being subscribed to the Mag I've read articles and records reviews about this artist and his label on different papery issues. I've picked that blurb as you call it since that it's the text accompanying each artist featured on The Wire Tapper, a cd-compilation gathering the best of electronics worldwide.Then if the artist's quotations and pics from Vice article on the Association of Autonomous Astronauts are not considered sustained, maybe the following https://dj.dancecult.net/index.php/dancecult/search/search?simpleQuery=dj+balli&searchField=query on DanceCult journal of electronic dance music published by Griffith University are? As I have time, I'm going add some more references. Djscaphandre (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The one review of his book in Dancecult comes the closest to something in depth (such that we could write something about the book), but with nothing in any depth about his biography or oeuvre aside from a selection by The Wire (blurb, as we're calling it), we don't have nearly enough reliable information with which to write an article. czar 13:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience! There´s more about that book http://datacide-magazine.com/cyrus-bozorgmehr-the-rabbit-hole-creative-space-2013-and-other-writings-book-review/#more-3450 and I´ve just added in the text reference to "Sonic Fictions" which is a technique very representative of artist´s oeuvre! Djscaphandre (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That Datacide ref is what we'd call a passing mention (it doesn't treat the subject in any depth) and "Sonic Fictions" was written by the author. The idea is that we need significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to write anything substantial about the topic, and we don't appear to have that. czar 18:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My edit wasn't over. Two comments above you wrote "with nothing in any depth about his biography or oeuvre" so I added my last edit about Sonic Fictions technique that is typical of artist's oeuvre. Changing subject, there's this new thing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scaphandre#Orphaned_non-free_image_File:VecchioLogoS.B..jpg (Djscaphandre) 15:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but the idea is that I could write about my technique too—that's not what makes me a notable figure. Coverage from important sources is what makes a person notable, according to WP. czar 16:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated in external references other two writers, precisely Andrea MuBi Brighenti and Nemeton, aknwoledged this technique as typical of the arist oeuvre (at the interconnection between djing and writing). So we're not talking, as you're putting it just above, about the author talking about his technique! Not to mention "Sonic Fictions" also spawned imitators and a following...Frankly I see potentials for a page here, maybe shorter and more condensed ok, am I still wrong according to you? (Djscaphandre) 22:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I said this above, but the only source that covers the artist's work in any depth is the Brighenti book review. If the Vice piece is related, it tells us more about AAA than the artist, and the Wire blurb wouldn't even count as a review. The only sources we have to write this article are then passing mentions, unreliable sources, and stuff written by the artist himself. Other people will chime in, though, if the dialogue doesn't look too ominous. czar 20:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources to show he meets notability criteria. Please note, if the result of this discussion is delete, Sonic Belligeranza, which is currently a redirect to this page should most likely be restored to its own page, after which it could be nominated for deletion as well. While that might simply waste everyone's time, since I don't feel it meets notability requirements either. We could simply say Delete Both during this discussion. Not sure of the proper procedure, but if it can be done here, I would !vote Delete Both. Onel5969 TT me 13:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure I' m no WP expert, I've joined some time ago, but never been active really. Debate now seems to have shifted to Sonic Belligeranza records page which is another page I did some edit for. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources ok, but 1) how can I add external references to it now that's merged? and 2) I just don't understand why right now there are online other breakcore records labels that have absolutely no in-depth coverage (actually no external references at all!) specified?!? If somebody could explain me this, I'd understand better why to delete this page. For now I just can think about editing it accordingly(Djscaphandre) 22:00, 1 maggio 2016 (UTC)
You can unmerge it and add references if you want—but what sources do you have to add? Not sure what you mean about other breakcore record label articles. Do you mean that you don't understand why other articles with less sourcing continue to exist? If they don't have enough sourcing, they should be nominated for deletion too. Editors usually say "other stuff exists", meaning that the existence of another poorly sourced article doesn't justify the existence of another. We focus on one article at a time in a discussion, each on its own merits. czar 22:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did my dissertation - in Italian - at the University about Sonic Belligeranza http://www.c8.com/c8/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12131 so I got a lot of materials: there are more sources spread on different music magazines, Decompression Magazine, Chili Com Carne, more from the Wire and more. Though it's mainly stuff on paper, and as I've just tried here with one of them http://www.exacteditions.com/read/the-wire/april-2008-(issue-290)-3539/60/2/ I can't really redirect I realize......Regarding the merge, I've seen this combination of label/musician also browsing other breakcore artists page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Forrest. Maybe like in here Cock Rock Disco is a paragraph in the biography, Sonic Belligeranza the label could be a chapter in dj Balli profile, another could be the A.A.A., a third the experimental writing tecnhiques and so on, each with related external references. But I wonder if it makes sense if I embark in this task considering the general discontent here. (Djscaphandre) 15:09, 2 may 2016 (UTC)
It could be worth it, but let's look at the sources first. Can you email me a copy of the dissertation if it isn't online? mail czar It depends on the source material. If the only coverage of the label is in underground zines and archival sources, it wouldn't have, as we require, "significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources". But otherwise, coverage in offline mainstream/professional publications would be an opportunity to expand the content. I have access to means to verify some source content. (By the way, the Jason Forrest article is atrociously sourced.) czar 23:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna make clear I brought out the page of the breakcore musician Forrest only 'cause his label (Cock Rock Disco) is a chapter of his biography and that gave me the idea of doing something similar for Dj Balli (one chapter the AAA, one Sonic Belligeranza label, one the new novel out in English translation within this year, etc). When I was talking about poorly sourced pages above I was referring to the ones of other breakcore labels I browsed while studying how things should be done on WP. At the link specified in my previous comment you find index and excerpts of my dissertation and I've just sent you an e-mail with in the body of the message all thesis pasted (I couldn't attach it to the mail!), please confirm you received it. As you can see it's in Italian, so I wonder if also reliable sources not in English are taken into consideration for the Wiki English??? (Djscaphandre) 15:09, 2 may 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Here are the refs:

Extended content
Assante E. - Castaldo G., Blues, Jazz, Rock, Pop. Il Novecento Americano. Guida a musicisti, gruppi, dischi, generi e tendenze, :Einauidi, Torino 2004.
Baumann Z., La Società Individualizzata. Come cambia la nostra esperienza, Il Mulino, Bologna 2002.
Balli R., Anche tu Astronauta: guida all'esplorazione indipendente dello spazio secondo l'Associazione Astronauti Autonomi, Castelvecchi, Roma 1998.
Balli R., Nubi all’orizzonte, Castelvecchi, Roma 1996.
Benedetti A., Mondo Techno, Nuovi Equilibri, Viterbo 2006.
Chambers I., Ritmi Urbani. Pop music e cultura di massa, Arcana S.r.l., Roma 2003.
De Martino E., Morte e Pianto Rituale. Dal lamento funebre antico al pianto di Maria, Bollati Boringhieri 2000.
De Martino E., La terra del Rimorso. Contributo a una storia religiosa del Sud, Il Saggiatore, Milano 2008.
Di Carlo G., La Musica Online. La sfida di Internet su diritti, distribuzione, e-commerce e marketing, RCS Libri S.p.A, Milano 2000.
Jones A. – Kantonen J., Love Train. La grande storia della Disco Music titolo per titolo, notte per notte, Arcana, Roma 2000.
McKey G., Atti Insensati di Bellezza. Le culture di resistenza hippy, punk, rave, ecoazione diretta e altre T.A.Z., Shake, Milano 2000.
Middleton R., Studiare la Popular Music, Feltrinelli, Milano 1994.
Murray Schafer R., Il Paesaggio Sonoro, Unicopli, Milano 1985.
Salvatore G., Techno-Trance. Una rivoluzione musicale di fine millennio, Castelvecchi, Roma 1998.
Surian E., Manuale di Storia della Musica vol IV. Il Novecento, Ruggimenti Editore, Milano 1995.
Viscardi R., Popular Music. Dinamiche della musica leggera dalle comunicazioni di massa alla rivoluzione digitale, Esselibri S.p.A., Napoli 2004.
Xsephone, Tecnologia, tribalismo e forme di nomadismo metropolitano: un’analisi sociologica dei rave illegali, Tesi di laurea 2000-2001, Bepress, Lecce/Milano 2009. I riferimenti a questo documento sono collegati alla versione integrale disponibile sul web al sito www.drexkode.net

We're interested in the sources that go into depth about the label, are reliable (a reputation for fact-checking), and are independent (not written by someone affiliated with the label). Which should we be looking at? czar 18:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of not having this drag on, an option could be to move both DJ Balli and Sonic Belligeranza to Wikipedia:Draftspace where anyone who wants can continue to work on it, and eventually submit it for review if they think it has enough coverage. I'm very, very doubtful that an article can be written on these subjects without a fair amount of original research from primary sources, but if you want to try, I think this is the best option. Otherwise, there seems to be a prima facie lack of significant coverage for these two topics. czar 12:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do what you think is best! Only if it's possible to wait some days before making any change, I should be able to prove more reliable sources, I'm just waiting from feedback from some authors I contacted years ago for my dissertation who also dealt with the subject. Also I've found two contributions I did not know: P.Magaudda and R. Shuker https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sonic+belligeranza&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5 Djscaphandre) 21:02, 6 maggio 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.42.66.194 (talk)
So I moved it to Draft:Sonic Belligeranza, where you can work on it and submit it for review when you're ready. Otherwise it'll get deleted in half a year. I'm skeptical about the sourcing—it would need to have a lot more than mentions in a chapter, but you can give it a try if you want. If it goes well, we can redirect the Balli article there, but I think, as of now, we're lacking the sources to keep this one. czar 20:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting to send you a bunch of sources via mail (hope it is ok!) but different authors I've asked them, are keeping me waiting. For now I've just mailed you this single one, since I realize just now, download of it will be over tomorrow. I'll have some more very soon! Djscaphandre) 20:01, 8 maggio 2016 (UTC)
I received it but it appears to be only two sentences in a book. We'd call that a passing mention. We're re looking for longer, in-depth article about Balli's importance—does that make sense? czar 18:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! I'm just waiting on the others. I give you the most recent example: https://books.google.it/books?id=i_D8sgEACAAJ&dq=strategie+del+rumore+martina+raponi&hl=it&sa=X&redir_esc=y a book about noise music. There's chapter on the subject. Plus some more. Let you know. Djscaphandre) 21:09, 8 maggio 2016 (UTC)
Just sent you the above mentioned book (sorry, it took two mails, only the second one is ok!), chapter about dj Balli is 3.3.2.6., pag.94. I'm also waiting for feedback from other authors that have been dealing with the subject. In the meantime, I've updated my knowledge in the issue since my dissertation and found many links on-line I didn't know. I start from the one in French since I could find only two (in addition to artist's Wiki French page) in that language that I can call substantial: 1) http://www.editionsduchemin.net/Magazine/rancid-opera 2) http://www.lyber-eclat.net/lyber/aaa/astrono.html I know this is a text from the author but from the French edition of his book "Anche tu Astronauta" (1998), firstly published in Italian. Djscaphandre) 19:13, 11 may 2016 (UTC)
I don't know the Strategie del Rumore publisher, but if it isn't self-published those pages should be good, so we can add that to the Brighenti book review. With those two links—I don't know about the credibility of the first one, and the second one appears to be written by Balli, so that's self-published. czar 01:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While the DJ has picked up a significant amount of fame and has been talked about by a variety of sources, I agree that he's not received the specific kind of reliable source coverage needed for his own page. I see that various blogs, some self-published material, et cetera have explored his work in depth, but that really isn't enough. I don't have a position on taking things into "draft" space, but I don't object if someone wants to try that. This page should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:56, 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. North America1000 20:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss Chinese International cities[edit]

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

unsourced article. Fancruft The Banner talk 17:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or not to merge? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page's redundant. CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it is fancruft and redundant (simply a different way of representing the data in the original article). Similar pages for other pageants should be deleted as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 6 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. MBisanz talk 10:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adstuck Consulting[edit]

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

My searches clearly found nothing better at all and that's not surprising considering the company is somewhat newly founded, there's simply nothing else to suggest keeping and improving. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 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. North America1000 08:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Goenka[edit]

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

Still confirming my removed PROD: "Hinting at promotional since it also go to details about her business works and such, still questionable for WP:GNG and the overall article is not convincing for this. The listed sources are only expected coverage and nothing suggesting either solid notability for Rachel Goenka or the businesses themselves.". My searches also easily found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would have still needed better news sources but my searches found nothing including the link above so it seems to be too soon. SwisterTwister talk 17:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
location:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
restaurant:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Rachel Goenka The Sassy Spoon
  • Keep per she and her work receiving the requisite coverage to meet WP:BASIC. The comparison to Rachael Ray is WP:WAX but appropriate, as coverage imparts notability... even if it is food related. Broken google-foo is sad but does not make the coverage disappear. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added some references and sources for this article and during my continued searching for information on this articles subject have yet to find/discover anything other than this is a very accomplished and skilled young Indian woman whose sucess is made even more remarkable by the awards she's won in such a short time. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The best part would be that you found extra coverage but this is still questionable for WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE, "very accomplished" and "skilled" is simply not solid to save this. SwisterTwister talk 12:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SwisterTwister: I apologize for inserting my personal thoughts about this articles subject here, where it doesn’t belong. However, this subject does meet WP:BASIC as admin MichaelQSchmidt points out, which is all I should have stated in the first place. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if a person meets WP:BASIC, we do not then look to SNGs. "Very accomplished" and "skilled" are perfectly fine if backed up with coverage in multiple sources. Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:08, 4 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. North America1000 08:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6D Global Technologies Inc.[edit]

6D Global Technologies Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My searches basically found nothing better than their own PR at News and also 2 links at Highbeam, the current article contains nothing solidly convincing to keep and improve. I patrolled this for review almost two months and there's nothing else to suggest keeping for any longer. Notifying tagger Widefox. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just PR puffing. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete curious combination of PR and a lawsuit. My understanding is WP:NCORP discounts the latter for notability. Widefox; talk 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This [29] is probably one of the very few non-trivial coverage in reliable and independent sources. There are some other sources related to the lawsuit [30], but these should be discounted per WP:ILLCON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:04, 6 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 08:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Meijer[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO JMHamo (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although currently still questionable, I'm willing to Keep if this can actually be improved. Delete as I reviewed this today and found it questionable, with my searches finding nothing outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep:I'm from the Netherlands, I don't know much about music, but I know her as a famous Dutch person who became famous after feauturing in The Voice of Holland. Many people in the Netherlands know her as she has been in the Dutch Top 40 see here, she writes songs for Kinderen voor Kinderen [31] (I think allmost all people in the Netherlands know songs from Kinderen voor Kinderen), she is in the news including in the main national news sources see example here, she is invited for several tv-programms like Kofietijd. I also saw she received the price of Beste Zangeres (en:Best Singer) during TROS Muziekfeest (a well known Dutch music festival) see here. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 11:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:54, 2 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. A clear consensus for deletion has been established herein. North America1000 20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim destruction of Christian history[edit]

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

Clear violation of WP:SYNTH, as no sources in the article discuss the matter underneath the topic umbrella created in this article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete There is a long and extremely well-documented history of Muslims destroying holy Christian sites throughout the Middle East, including from National Geographic. There is no reason that a Wikipedia article should not reflect this. Wikiwillkane (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic may be notable, through I don't see any sources. But this is a de-facto list of "Muslim crimes against Christians", a xenophobic NPOV beating stick based on few newspaper articles. What's next, List of crimes committed by immigrants? Mexicans? Americans? Jews? Wikipedia is no place for lists of hates. Nuke it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic is notable. But, this is clearly a POV. If you look back through history, pretty much every religion destroyed another religion's stuff at least once. The title seems to be POV as well. I agree with User:Piotrus. Nuke it and change the title, then make a better, more neutral article. NOTE: User:Wikiwillkane has been punished before for making articles and making POV edits related to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the underlying topic is notable (specifically the history of conflict between Christianity and Islam), the important bits are already neutrally discussed at Christianity and Islam. Given the title and the content, there is no way this article can be made NPOV Intelligentsium 13:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete The article's intent is to document relatively recent examples of the destruction of Christian edifices. It would appear to be unique in that regard and worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31EB:A760:E5FE:B3EB:760F:1A15 (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete If the ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to meld every article and subject into one long single Wikipedia article with many sub-headings, then please, delete this article. That seems to be the gist of the arguments for deletion. Can we not write about an ongoing milestone in civilization such as a concerted effort by many Muslims to wipe away Christianity and its history? The example given that sites were destroyed in the Syrian civil war is a non sequitur. Moreover, Wikipedia's view of non-biased seems to be hijacking moral equivalency. If a concerted and ongoing action by Muslims is highlighted through thousands of documents, why must we now highlight in the same Wikipedia article, all concerted efforts perpetrated against Muslims? Lastly, my "Warning (not "punishment") was related to the 500/30, not to POV edits. At least let's be factual. Wikiwillkane (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First, you have already voted. Second, Muslims are not trying to "Wipe away Christianity". You are confusing Islam with ISIL. Also, as Intelligentsium said, Christianity totally hasn't done that..... totally... . Also, even if we accept your arguments, this is still biased, and does not follow WP:NPOV. This is biased, plain and simple. Even if we kept it, we would change the title, TNT the article, and you would have no part in editing it due to bias. It's clear that you are a Christian, as you described these sites as "holy". As an atheist, I have no bias on the subject. Notifying an Admin, as this could use attention. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • ThePlatypusofDoom accused me of voting twice. He/she is wrong and has vandalized both MY edit and another user's. All I did was add a "Don't Delete" to his/her section and a bullet. Most importantly, ThePlatypusofDoom clearly states that one can only be unbiased if they are an atheist. I stated holy sites (meaning, holy to them). I am not a Christian, but thank you for clarifying how biased you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwillkane (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was the one who "vandalized" your response to strike the second vote. You clearly voted twice. All edits are recorded in the Page history, but even barring that there is already a vote with your name attached to it at the top of the page. Your religion is irrelevant; the article title and content are the questions at hand, and both of them suggest that the facts that the perpetrators of the destruction are Muslims and the artefacts destroyed are Christian are somehow relevant, where in reality this is simply an extremist group disowned by all mainstream Muslim figures destroying artefacts and sites which are culturally significant to many groups. Intelligentsium 22:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed POV material from the article. Go to article history to see the POV version. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As written this is clear bias, Examples: "also states that “there were no Christian schools in the country" which while presumably true, is irrelevant to the topic of the article; "the church was built in dedication to the one and a half MILLION Armenians who.." (not the full capitals for MILLIONS); "the destruction of the tomb of the prophet Jonah" (Jonah , for one thing, was not a Christian prophet but a Jewish prophet who prophecies were later used by the Christians) sourced articled discussing the destruction of Muslim sites as well as Christian and Jewish. The bias seems so great that any possible article would need to start over.here probably are publications discussing this as a general topic that could be used for a proper article, and the lack of any attempt to find them is just another indication of the present article's bias. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the POV material removed, it would seem perfectly noteworthy to have an article on Islamic destruction of Christian sites, which the article shows, is certainly happening, and the sites appear to be significant. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but we already have a non-biased version of this at Christianity and Islam, List_of_heritage_sites_damaged_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War, and Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL . ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious WP:SYNTH from WP:PRIMARY sources used to create an unnecessary WP:POVFORK of Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pr nominator, and previous voter, Huldra (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC) (I wonder what will be next, List of rapes committed by Mexicans? Huldra (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete this article per WP:POVFORK, add the core content of it (Muslims hate Christians, Christians hate Muslims, they destroy each other's stuff, people on Wikipedia argue about it) in a less biased manner to Persecution of Christians, and create a redirect. That article already contains sufficient coverage of the "Muslim destruction of Christian history", both in historical terms and in modern context, and any gaps are filled in nicely by, as has been mentioned, Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL and Christianity and Islam. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 00:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletedid a 5 year old write this article? 1st grade project here? Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.203.237 (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject can have an article but I can't figure out a way to make an encyclopedic article. For now this article seems like a POV garbage (no offense). The creator should understand how WP:POV and WP:NPOV work, as well as WP:NOTE and bring serious sources and not WP:OR with news reports. This article is a blog, not a Wiki article and deleting it, apart from removing this unneeded text from Wikipedia, might change the attitude of the creator toward more productive editings.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for anything suggesting its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 9 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 1 week now has only suggested Keeping (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Clark[edit]

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

Second leading American football rusher for his college, but no pro career. Does not seem to satisfy WP:NCOLLATH Edison (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He is the second-leading rusher in history for a Division I FCS FBS team. He passes WP:GNG as he has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable media outlets, some of which are already cited in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) Per Cbl. He's the second-leading rusher for a team in the highest level of college competition, and he has gained individual national media attention, from at least the four different sources cited in the article. Lizard (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Second leading rusher for his team" does not explicitly satisfy WP:NCOLLATH. I see coverage of his football playing in newspapers from the same state the college is located in. Was there much national coverage of his playing? He probably got routine passing reference (Jones passed to Smith who carried the ball 12 yards) in articles about games in which he played, but that seems inadequate to establish notability for a college athlete. It takes substantial coverage of his sports career. Pretty local coverage so far in the references provided in the article. He got some national mention for being "dismissed from the college" for reasons the college refused to state under privacy rules, shortly before he was to graduate, which would be a basis for WP:BLP1E deletion for most bio articles. Edison (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Edison: -- My view is that Clark passes WP:GNG. National media attention is not required under GNG (though there was some), but I do tend to discount the coverage somewhat if it is limited to small town or student newspapers covering a local athlete. In this case, the coverage is not so limited. Nor is there a WP:BLP1E given that the coverage of his career was extensive from 2008 to 2011 (long before the dismissal). For example, The Denver Post is one of the country's major metropolitan dailies, ranking 10th in circulation nationally. The Denver Post covered Clark's career extensively, including these articles: (1) "Asher Clark's father calls Air Force dismissal a "travesty", 5/24/12, (2) "Air Force football star Asher Clark dismissed from academy", 5/20/12, (3) "Air Force's Asher Clark having a record career", (4) "Clark in a rush to hit finish line as a winner", 11/15/01 (available on NewsLibrary.com), (5) "School-record run puts Clark at head of the class", 9/24/11, (6) "Clark galloping into high gear", 8/11/11 (available on NewsLibrary.com), (7) "Clark in comfort zone at tailback Coach Calhoun says the skilled sophomore brings a lot of fire to the team", 9/4/09 (available on NewsLibrary.com), and (8) "Instant impact Freshman tailback Clark could get the start against UNLV", 11/17/08. Likewise, The Gazette is not a podunk, small town newspaper; rather, it is a respected, 2014 Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper that also covered Clark extensively. Coverage in The Gazette includes: (9) "Offensive linemen excited for Clark's chase for AFA's rushing record", (10) "Running back Asher Clark finishing up steady career for Air Force", 11/18/11, (11) "Quietly, Clark puts together big career", 11/19/11 (available on NewsLibrary.com), (12) "RB Clark quietly continues assault on AFA record book," 11/20/11 (available on NewsLibary.com), (13) "Air Force's Clark takes no-nonsense route to end zone, Senior running back delivers superb season", 11/19/11 (available on NewsLibrary.com), (14) "Asher Clark has been productive with surprisingly few carries", 10/11/11 (available on NewsLibrary.com), (15) "Asher Clark takes bold run to superb senior season for Falcons", 10/8/11 (available on NewsLibrary.com), (16) "Falcons' Clark is making it look easy", 10/7/11 (available on NewsLibrary.com), (17) "Durable Clark gets ready for next 1,000", 8/5/11, and (18) "Humble Clark Hits 1,000-Yard Milestone", 12/10/10, (18) "Asher Clark's rare achievement", 11/23/10, (19) "Clark Shows His Potential With Big Stats", 10/15/10, (20) "Clark gets bigger, now ready to run harder", 8/9/10, (21) "Clark is lead horse in stable", 3/4/10, (22) "Clark Named MWC Co-Offensive Player of the Week", 11/16/09, (23) "Falcons' Clark is primed for stretch", 11/3/09, (24) "Freshman Clark Right at Home in New Position", 10/26/08. Significant coverage in other media outlets includes (25) this from the Reporter-Herald, (26) this from the Gwinnett Daily Post, (27) "Clark leads Falcons", Longmont Times-Call, 11/15/09 (available on NewsLibrary.com), (28) "Air Force freshman Clark breaks out in big way", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 11/9/08 (available on NewsLibrary.com), and (29) "Clark tops list of Lions' commitments", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1/24/08, and (30) "Lions' Clark commits to Air Force Academy", Gwinnett Daily Post, 1/25/08, (31) "Asher Clark kicked out", 5/20/12, (32) "Air Force duo tries to keep NFL dreams alive years after college careers ended", Yahoo Sports, 4/7/13. Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 22:49, 4 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.  Sandstein  19:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Tamaulipas[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No sources no claim of notability. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no sources, original research, deleted as hoax in es.wikipedia. Strakhov (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the flag itself is legitimate -- see the state's web site here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a coat of arms, not a flag. Strakhov (talk) 14:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason claimed there was "Bulo, en México los estados no tienen banderas", that could be translated as "Hoax, Mexican states have no flags". Strakhov (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how literally we read the term "flag". Although most Mexican states do not have an "official" flag, they still use a de facto flag consisting of the state's coat of arms placed on a white background. As to the good folks over at Spanish Wikipedia, they got it wrong even if they adopted your strict reading of "flag". Some Mexican states do have official flags (Jalisco, Quintana Roo, Queretaro and, perhaps, others). Despite this, I've reconsidered my "merge" recommendation. Much of the article's text is largely given over to a description of the coat of arms, and that material is probably better placed in the state's article. So, I'll be striking that recommendation and changing it to "redirect". NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as these de facto flags were not described by reliable sources (not even by a laconic line in an official bulletin)... I'm not sure whether they are flags or not, but I'm very sure about them being non enciclopedic content. And when someone writes things that turn to be not true or highly tendentious... often kind of an hoax too. Anyways, in this case at least there is a law entitled "Ley sobre el Escudo y el Himno de Tamaulipas" (coat of arms and anthem) where a few words about a flag are written, but only as "una modalidad de representación del escudo", not a symbol of the state itself. Strakhov (talk) 00:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the law of course is a primary source which does not support the notability, only the existence, of the flag.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Mexican I can affirm that the State of Tamaulipas has no flag, you will not find reliable sources regarding this. States in México tend to present the shield on a banner, but not a single case the people or their Government recognize as a flag. This article is a complete hoax. This article and 170 more created by Marrovi have been deleted in Wikipedia in Spanish, mainly by be hoaxes or primary sources, see here. The same problems have been repeated in the German and Italian versions. We have almost five months reviewing his articles, I recommend to make a comprehensive review of his contributions.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No one here is recommending that the article be kept. As to the question of 'delete' vs. 'redirect' (or 'merge'), consider the following -- a reader can search for Flag of (any U.S. state) or Flag of (any Canadian province) and be taken to an article. But what happens if the reader searches for Flag of (a Mexican state)? For the most part, they'll simply be told that the page doesn't exist. But with a redirect to State flags of Mexico, the reader will learn, in the target article's first sentence, that most Mexican states do not have official flags. This in itself is encyclopedic knowledge that would not be provided by a generic "page does not exist" message. I also note that there is a broad benefit in treating the Mexican states in a manner that is consistent with our treatment of U.S. states and Canadian provinces. And there is no downside to giving Mexico that consistent treatment -- as the saying goes, "redirects are cheap".
As to the specific question of Tamaulipas, Strakhov has already pointed out the ambiguous status of its "flag". Yes, it is defined in the state law as a coat of arms "in the form of a flag". But that law also goes on to provide the physical specifications that one normally sees when a law does defines an official flag. This ambiguous status in discussed (with references) in the article State flags of Mexico. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Then... delete the article first, create a redirect afterwards. Digging article's history should not give bad ideas. :) Strakhov (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Anyways, "State flags of Mexico" itself also seems kinda original research to me, but since I'm not acquainted with English Wikipedia guidelines about lists and all that stuff (and that article is not in discussion, so far), I won't push forward with it.[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry, but I do not agree, redirect Flag of Tamaulipas to State flags of Mexico stills being misleading information. The shield on a banner is not a de facto flag and you will not find reliable sources claiming otherwise. It's only a practical way to present the shield in public events, no one placed it on the buildings or schools. In México there are 3 or 4 States that have flag and the only two correct items in this article are the flag of Jalisco and Quintana Roo. But, as Strakhov says, I am not acquainted about English Wikipedia policies, but I would think that the first two pillars apply in all Wikipedias, by that of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial". I think that Flag of Tamaulipas should be deleted and removed from State flags of Mexico. If somebody searches for Flag of Tamaulipas they must be told that the page doesn't exist because the flag doesn't exist. I am bringing here the information that I have, my only interest is the project, you will be who take the final decision. Regards.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rosymonterrey Thank you for your comments, both here and on my talk page. I'll briefly address the two points you just raised. First, there is indeed a reliable source that describes the coat of arms as a flag. It's the state law that sets forth the physical specifications and protocols that apply when the coat of arms is used "en su modalidad la Bandera" (in "flag mode"). The state law is referenced in the target article, and the reference specifies the particular sections of the law that describe its use as a flag. And because the web link for the law is the state government's own web site, I can't imagine a more authoritative or reliable reference. Second, galleries of flags are not "indiscriminate collections of information". Such galleries routinely appear in print encyclopedias and there are quite a few gallery articles on Wikipedia. You can see a list of them at Category:Lists and galleries of flags. Some of them are featured lists and there is nothing "indiscriminate" about any of them. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to suggest Delete if this is all entirely questionable. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 and 2. That's what is gonna happen sooner or later if a clean break is not made. Proudful POV pushers pushing their little tiny nation-state-region-list fantasies, filling Wikipedia with tendentious and biased and plain false information. I don't know what kind of phallacy I incurred, but it sounds legit to me. :) Tamaulipas does not have a "state flag"? Well, then... let it be that way. Period. I'd suggest content's creator (Marrovi)... writing about things that they really exist. In an enciclopedic manner. And for that... reliable sources giving context are needed. Still waiting. Mixing state-flags with flags-"belonging"-to-unflagged-states... seems to me like an unencyclopedic mess. It often occurs when we are not dealing with reliable sources. Strakhov (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a list of imaginary flags must be considered a indiscriminate collection of information. When somebody show me a reliable source that claims that the State of Tamaulipas has a real flag, I will change my opinion. At this time, if you want to keep visible misinformation, I can't do anything. I felt really bad for not warning you about the hundreds of fake articles, now I did it. This is one of them, keep it in English Wikipedia is your decision. Best regards.--Rosymonterrey (talk) 14:28, 9 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 State flags of Mexico. MBisanz talk 10:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Tlaxcala[edit]

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

No sources provided (the source depicts the flag but does not discuss or even mention it), GNG not met. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Tlaxcala flag is historic Mexican flag, don't a independence movement or secession, this flag is since colonial government [32], now is used for the state government [33] [34].--Marrovi (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is then there must be sources that describes it as such. It is the article creators job to present those.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's correct. I think it is the job of all participants at AfDs to conduct some basic searches, especially if advocating deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V says otherwise. Noone should create articles for which there are no sources. Now enlighten me on the results of your search. I found one news article published by the Tlaxcala state government that mentions the flag. Can you explain how that mention establishes notability? IN this particular case it may also be worth noting that the creator has been blocked on several other wikipedias for creating hoax articles and articles based on Original research - several of them about state flags of Mexico. I have already removed two paragraphs of original research from the article which had added a source that did not actually support the added content. I have found the same problem in all the other articles that Marrovi has worked on.--·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marrovi is not gonna stop adding original research, hoaxes and his own personal outlandish interpretations until he gets blocked. That's the way it is. History repeats itself. Strakhov (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to the provincial article. I think there is just about enough for it to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That strikes me as an extremely low bar for notability. Is there a guideline that I am not familiar with that says that flags are notable if it can only be shown that they actually exist? The requirement for "non-trivial second party coverage" doesnt apply?
I have done a slight edit on this but have left the "Translation" tag. If kept, I would suggest that the closing admin should remove that tag. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as sources (or the lack of them) are not able to provide an enciclopedic context about what that flag is (original research). Strakhov (talk) 10:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to State flags of Mexico. Changing my recommendation to "redirect", for the following reason -- a reader can search for Flag of (any U.S. state) or Flag of (any Canadian province) and be taken to an article. But what happens if the reader searches for Flag of (a Mexican state)? For the most part, they'll simply be told that the page doesn't exist. But with a redirect to State flags of Mexico, the reader will learn, in the target article's first sentence, that most Mexican states do not have official flags. This in itself is encyclopedic knowledge that would not be provided by a generic "page does not exist" message. I also note that there is a broad benefit in treating the Mexican states in a manner that is consistent with our treatment of U.S. states and Canadian provinces. And there is no downside to giving Mexico that consistent treatment -- as the saying goes, "redirects are cheap". NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Piotrus Just to clarify, the only flags that appear in the article State flags of Mexico are those that have been sourced to a state law. If we have no such source for Tlaxcala, then no flag will appear there. As for the notability of flags, check out Category:Lists and galleries of flags. There are quite a few similar articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@NewYorkActuary: Similar just means we may have to AfD them. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for reference. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ... good luck with that. But you might get some resistance from the good folks over at WP:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:28, 9 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 09:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelicals (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 23:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I don't agree with Walter a whole lot, I've a comment and a question. First off, both those reviews you cite are from Allmusic, and the GNG requires that the subject receive significant coverage from multiple sources (if you believe, which I don't, that the Allmusic biography constitutes "significant" coverage). My question is this: I fancy myself familiar with WP:BAND, and have participated in dozens if not hundreds of band AfDs, and I'm missing where a Metacritic score forms any part of notability criteria; could you point that out? Ravenswing 13:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 12:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable given the coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there seems to be enough. SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 9 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, can be moved to draft or userspace on request. All voters but one think the article fails notability criteria in its present form.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Omicron[edit]

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

No evidence that this article saisfies WP:ORG. Draft was declined at AfC for notability concerns twice the last time being here in October 2015 by Robert McClenon. The draft was tagged for speedy deletion for not being edited in 6 months with this edit, but that was removed by an IP editor. Draft was then moved to the article namespace two days later by it's creator here without any of the notability concerns being addressed. The sororities own website is cited a number of times in the article and is a primary source which cannot be used to establish notability. The Gamma Chapter Fundraiser citation is for a school newspaper that does mention the sorority (along with two others) being involved in a fundraising event, but the article is more about the event itself than the sorority (it's only mentioned in passing and only a single time) so that doesn't really help establish its notability. The citation for Project Pearls again seems only indirectly connected to the sorority itself (I couldn't find a single mention of the sorority on the page), so this appears to be unhelpful for establishing notability. The Mula Sa Ugat: From the Roots from the Golden Gate Express is again more about a fundraising event the sorority participated in than the sorority itself (one of the chapters is only mentioned a single time as being one of the participants). Same goes for Rapper.com citation. That leaves the book Brothers and Sisters: Diversity in College Fraternities and Sororities. This book can be found here on Google Books. The only mention of the sorority is on page 99 and that is just as single entry in a list of various other fraternities and sororities. None of the above represents the significant coverage required per WP:ORGDEPTH and I was unable to find anything other than social media sites or other trivial coverage after Googling "Alpha Kappa Omicron". -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason why this article had not been touched is because it kept being declined for candidacy as an article, despite having two different unbiased sources as references. It was picked up again in hopes of having someone without a varying mindset finally confirm legitimacy. This article has more references and is more detailed and accurate than similar articles on Wikipedia, which are not candidates for deletion like Kappa Zeta Phi's article page which has NO references but is still not considered for deletion. There has to be some sort of standard. and the users constantly nominating this article for deletion keep saying its due to lack of credibility. If you read earlier pages, i asked what specifically qualifies as credible source, i was told an unbiased paper like a school newspaper would suffice. It was never mentioned that the school newspapers had to write an in-depth article about either chapter. But there fact that the organization participated in those events are validation that the organization exists and is active on the campus, on more than one campus. I have provided two of those and still i am getting shot down. Is there a discrimination issue here? Every thing that was ask for was provided and this article is being nominated based of what? If the standard of my page far exceeds that of another sorority that is not even close to being deleted, then this page's status as an article should stand. The other sorority is one of many that have subpar referencing (related to your fluctuating standards of credibility) Naiele3 (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Naiele3: Just for reference, I am not saying the sorority is not credible or that it doesn't exist or that it doesn't do good things. I am only saying that I don't think it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations which it needs to do to have a stand-alone Wikipedia article about it. There are many articles added to Wikipedia each day, and many of these, unfortunately, have similar notability issues. Some are noticed quickly and some go years before somebody comes across them and nominates them for deletion, but the fact that other articles exist about similar organizations is not really relevant and does not help establish the notability of Alpha Kappa Omicron. Newspapers, etc. are generally reliable sources, but more significant coverage is required about the organization than trivial mentions. This was explained to you in different ways by various editors in answers to your Teahouse questions Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 390#Notability Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 401#Notability and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 403#Draft: Alpha Kappa Omicron. It was also mentioned by KylieTastic when she declined your draft here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly:What was asked from this article: newspaper sourcing was given two fold. It can't just be decided on a whim to become more picky about the newspaper article contents. Should i go to the local school newspaper to tell them to write and in depth piece clearly outlining the members, executive board, and complete details of the sorority? As well as favorite colors? Wouldn't that make it more of the sorority's page than a wiki article? Otherwise how else would an article satisfy your ever changing demands? The fact that other articles exist that are subpar to this one is completely valid. This one meets standard MORE than the other ones. The fact that this one is being slotted for immediate deletion or "speedy deletion" and wasting ALL of the work that was put into it is completely relevant, as i was the one putting time into it. There is no clear point on what is wanted in simple layman's terms. The guidelines page is completely convoluted, and as such can only be interpreted with assumptions of clear points. Your article needs A. *** B. *** C. ***. You are good at referencing "evidence" against this page, why don't you actually assist in the creation of this article unlike many before you and clearly state what is needed. I have tried and been rejected after following the suggestions of others, to no avail and with no solution from those rejecting the article. It seems as if most of those doing the rejecting have a really bad god complex. Naiele3 (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you are able to show that the sorority has received significant in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, then that would help show that it is notable for a stand-alone article. That is what the AfC reviewers who declined your draft were trying to tell you and that is also what DES was saying in his reply to one of your Teahouse questions on notability. That has always been the case and nothing has been changed on a whim. You were referred to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) a couple of times and it clearly says "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." As I said above, trying to justify that this sorority deserves to have its own stand-alone article because it other more poorly sourced articles about sororites exist is not going to help etablish its notability. I am not trying to make light of the time and effort you've put into this, but we can't make the subject of an article more notable simply through editing article content per WP:ARTN. Trivial mentions, etc. made in reliable sources are fine for supporting information stated within the article per WP:V, but they are not sufficient for establishing notability. Something more in depth is needed. If such sources are not already in the article, then you just need to show that they exist per WP:NEXIST. I tried looking for them, but all I found where trivial mentions. Another editor may have better luck. If it can be show that such sources do exist, then I will withdraw this nomination.
Another thing to remember is that the fact that you created the article does not give you any ownership rights over it. Once you added it to the article namespace, it became eligible for anyone to edit. Any editor can remove content that they feel does not comply with Wikipedia's various policy and guidelines, even if that takes the article in a direction that you or the sorority might not agree with. Also, if you are connected to the sorority in any way, then it might be seen as if you've a conflict-of-interest. COI editing is not expressly prohibited, but it is something highly discouraged for the reasons given in Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. When the article was a draft, you were given a bit of leeway to work on it as you please. It's no longer a draft anymore, so you don't really have any final editorial control over it. So, there is an option called userfication that you might want to consider. You can ask that the article be moved back to your userspace so that you can continue to work on it. You can continue to search for sources which show that the sorority satisfies WP:ORG. You can then submit the draft to AfC and see what the reviewers say. As long as you keep working on the draft, it will not be tagged for speedy deletion. A COI editor (if that's the case with you) is pretty much allowed to work on drafts without restriction because the AfC reviewers will vet the draft and advise the editor on how to clean the article up so that it satisfies relevant policies and guidelines. Just a suggestion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know where the assumption that i was offended about added/removed content came from. This article has been completely unbiased from the beginning with the only "PR" being their mission statement. (which can be found on every single greek letter organization's page). Also you said "but they are not sufficient for establishing notability. Something more in depth is needed. If such sources are not already in the article, then you just need to show that they exist". Which is the point of this, which we will call "a", to show their status as a recognized, high achieving organization on campus, and this which we will call "b" to show what they did to get that status on the campus. These are not easy things to do or maintain, so "b" serves as justification for "a", despite "b's" not having any mention of the sorority; hence "If such sources are not already in the article, then you just need to show that they exist" "b" proves the existence of "a". What is funny is in the disclaimer it says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions." and i have verified the hell out of this article and had links to support the verification. If the issue is monetary, trust me, i donate to Wikipedia FREQUENTLY (but am soon to change that habit, as it is a waste of money) But whatever.
So first question is, will i have to move it back to the draft space, or will that be done automatically (even through i really dont thing that it should be moved at all)? Second is will the verification of incorporation be enough to prove that the organization is 'notable'. Since it is being registered with the california state franchise board with all legalities and what not in tow. Naiele3 (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: is a reference like the http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=spartandaily reference suitable? it doesn't mention the organization in passing and in fact interviews a member. Should other references model this one? Naiele3 (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Naiele3: In my opinion (others may feel differently), I think the school paper qualifies as a reliable source, but I would not call that significant coverage. The sorority is only mentioned twice by name and interviews are almost always considered to be primary sources (which cannot be used to establish notability). I think it probably could be used as a reliable source in support of the sorority's involvement in Project Pearl, etc., but not to help establish notability. However, as I said at the beginning of my post, others may feel differently. I do not get the final say and the closing admin might think it is close enough to count as one of the two sigcov sources generally considered to be needed per WP:ORG.
Finally, I just noticed your post from 21:37 April 18 (the one above what you posted today). I'm sorry I didn't notice it sooner. I believe I answered the questions you asked in various other posts later on in this thread. One thing though is that this has absolutely nothing to do with whether you donate to Wikipedia. If the "secret" to getting a Wikipedia article written about you or your organization (I am using "you" in the general sense, not to specifically refer to you) was to donate money, then anyone could essentially buy space in the encyclopedia and add whatever they like. I realize this was almost certainly something posted out of frustration, but Wikipedia really doesn't operate that way at all. The Wikimedia Foundation does have a full time staff and operating expenses, so donations from people such as yourself do help and are appreciated; however, you don't get any special privaleges in return (at least nothing that I am aware of). -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Userfy, or Draftify. I'd like to see this kept, but there do not seem to be the sources to meet the standard significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I'm not sure where this could be merged, hence the other two options. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. I'd also vote to keep this article. Naiele3, you've done a good job attempting to get this published. Valid references to assert notability include reference links to some or any of your three schools that have a citation for you among their valid student organizations. --You've done that. The newspaper citations are nice, but where they are 'thin' without more than the briefest mention of you, you might replace them with a stronger reference when these become available. Jax MN (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure though Jax MN how sources such as this, this or this satisfy WP:ORG. The first one is just a mention of the sorority in a list of other greek organizations at the university. That seems to be the "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" referred to as trivial coverage in WP:ORGDEPTH. The second source goes into some detail about the sorority, but reads almost like a PR statement (possibly submitted by the sorority itself) than significant coverage by an independent source and might be problematic per WP:ORGIND. The last source does not even mention the sorority, but seems instead to be trying to show that San Jose State University has standards of excellence that it uses to grade greek organizations. The first two show that the sorority exists, but I don't think anyone is claiming that sorority does not exist. The fact that something exists, however, does not automatically mean it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these references are thin - BUT specifically the SJSU refs are still valid. A difficulty that this organization faces, as do many of the new multicultural groups, is that it has been some years since a new version of Bairds has been published, which provides the most common reference for legitimacy by those groups it profiles. This new sorority has three chapters. Yet we have locals with no building who have their own Wikipedia pages. My view is that we need vastly more pages, not less, thus I continue to favor keeping this page. Jax MN (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. the last publication of Baird's manual was in 1991, 6 years before the formation of Alpha Kappa Omicron. Unfortunately for this page, that works against its favor. Will incorporation of the organization be suitable enough justification to sustain this article? It seems as if you are the only one able to offer constructive criticism and suggestions vs dismissively directing me off to another page. thanks! Naiele3 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Naiele3, I've been in your position. Make sure your refs are something other editors can find easily. Online is best, using a reference format that links to the article. Your citation of articles of incorporation would be very helpful and would mollify some of the critical voices. Finally, if you had a physical presence as a mailing address (a university office that is semi-permanent, and not a residence), this would also help. Good grief. Some editors are so annoyingly critical. Jax MN (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: if Alpha Kappa Omicron has an alumna or two who have been called out as such in a magazine or newspaper that are Notable, this may be referenced within an Alumni section. It's one more way to show that other valid sources agree that your organization is notable, and that this isn't just a product of a biased organization member. Jax MN (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would be helpful for verifying article content, but not really helpful for establishing Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia notability is not inherited and cannot be transferred from one party to another. The fact that an organization is Wikipedia notable does not mean that the members (former members) of that organization are also Wikipedia notable and vice versa. Citing the articles of incorporation may also be acceptable for verifying certain article content per WP:PSTS, but I'm pretty sure this would be considered a primary source and primary sources are not helpful in establishing notability. This is all fine for showing that the sorority exists, but existence does not equal Wikipedia notability. What it needed is significant coverage about the organization in multiple independent reliable sources. You [Jax MN] may refer to that as being annoyingly critical, but I refer to it as Why we have these requirements. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@marchjuly explain the difference (in the most CCC, concise, complete and clear way) between verifying existence, notability and verifying content, if you can. Although convoluted, cluttered and constantly rambling is more your style. Thanks Naiele3 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Naiele3: It's understandable that you're frustrated, but you probably should stop taking little potshots at me. You've done this in a few of your other posts and it's not something that Wikipedia is about. I have not commented on you as an editor and have tried to keep the discussion focused on relevant policy and guidelines, so I am kindly asking you to try and do the same. As for you question, I am not sure how to answer this without referencing various policy/guideline pages, but I'll try. Wikipedia requires that all subjects be notable, which basically means that they have received significant coverage in independent (secondary) reliable sources. Wikipedia requires that article content be verifiable, which basically means that whatever is written in an article can be verified by checking reliable sources. Simple basic/obvious facts do not needed to be supported by a reliable source, but statements/claims which might be seen as contentious by another editor or are about a living person generally require reliable sources in support. This is because Wikipedia articles are intended to be written neutrally in a manner that reflects what reliable sources say, and not written from any editor's personal point of view. Verifying the existence of something may be relevant to what is written in an article, and something that exists might be considered notable for a Wikipedia article, but existence does not equal notability. There are lots of things that exist. I exist as does every other person in the world. Every company/organization in the world exists. If existence was all that was needed for a Wikipedia article to be created, there would/could be a article created about everything we know to exist. The notability guidelines were established to place a limit on what should be included in the encyclopedia to ensure that such a thing does not happen, and it is according to these guidelines that Wikipedia notability is evaluated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@marchjuly sorry, its frustrating because i feel like you are pretty much given game the run around. BUT this response is actually a little better and a little more clear. So how would individual parts of this article verified by outside sources contribute to getting notability for this article? i.e. does this org holding a fundraiser for a country affected by natural disaster contribute to that versus the org being mentioned as participants in an article about a fundraiser for a country affected by a natural disaster. and what other sources or articles count? this org does not have scandalous exposes about hazing, etc like other org (i was looking at other orgs articles and they have a lot of controversy pieces). what else can be done to establish notability, so that i can prove not only does this org exist (which we all know it does) but also that it is notable? i need ideas and a direction to head. Naiele3 (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Naiele3: I wasn't trying to give you the run around and I don't believe any of the other editors posting here or the AfC reviewers who reviewed you draft are/were trying to as well. Wikipedia notability is hard to get a grasp of because Wikipedia's definition differs slightly from what most people are used to out in the real world. So, the only sure way to try and explain it is to link to relevant policy/guideline pages and try expound upon what is written on them. Perhaps you were being half-serious/half-sarcastic when you posted Should i go to the local school newspaper to tell them to write and in depth piece clearly outlining the members, executive board, and complete details of the sorority?, but something like that in an independent reliable source would go a long way to helping show the sorority satisfies WP:ORG. Depending upon the depth of the coverage, you'll need at least one other equivalent source or to be able to show that such an equivalent source exists. Please note that by "exists", I mean such a source exists (as explained in WP:NEXIST) and not that the sorority itself exists. I probably wasn't as clear about this the in my above post, which seems to have caused some unneeded confusion. Two independent reliable sources which show that the sorority has received significant coverage would be enough. The entire source (from front to back cover) does not have to be about the sorority, but there needs to be more coverage than the stuff listed as trivial in WP:ORGDEPTH. As for being involved in a fundraising event, I think that depends again on the coverage the sorority receives/received for it. If the sorority was significantly involved in the event and received significant coverage for their involvement in independent reliable sources, then that might be considered as helpful towards establishing notability. If, however, the sorority was just mentioned by name or only very briefly, then that might not be considered significant coverage. A lot also depends on whether the event itself is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Involvement in something major like a nationwide/worldwide fundraiser which received lots of coverage might be seen as more helpful, than a local bake sale to raise some money. The following may not be good examples, but I'll try anyway.
First a general example. There was a terrible disaster somewhere such as a major earthquake, etc. which received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so some editor creates a Wikipedia article about it. While researching the article, the editor finds out that many individuals and organizations were involved in the recovery. Some of these were even mentioned by name in various newspaper/magazine articles about the disaster. These individuals/organizations may not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a stand-alone article, but they certainly might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article about the event. The editor, however, discovers one organization which played a huge role in the recovery and received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources as a result. Not only can this organization be mentioned in the article about the event, but it also might be suitable candidate for a stand-alone article.
Now a specific Wikipedia example. Try thinking 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia, Band Aid (band) and Do They Know It's Christmas?. All three are connected and each is mentioned in the other articles; however, each was considered to have received enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to have somebody to create stand-alone articles for them. I'm not claiming that each article is perfect because technically all Wikipedia articles are not perfect, but they do seem to satisfy the relevant notability guidelines of WP:EVENT, WP:BAND and WP:NSONG. Now if you look in Do They Know It's Christmas?#Other versions, you see that one of the entries mentions that the band "The Genuine Solutions Group" released a cover version of the song for Rainbow Trust Children's Charity and this is supported by a citation for verification. There is a stand-alone article for the the charity, but no stand-alone article for the band. Perhaps there should be one for the band and nobody has written it yet or perhaps it's simply a case of the band not yet receiving the significant coverage it needs for a stand-alone article. I'm not totally sure, but my guess is that it's more of a case of the latter than the former. Sorry for the all the links and the length, but hopefully all this helps explain things a little better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MarchJuly Yes i was being somewhat facetious, but you actually clarified a lot branching off of that. Its so much easier to understand what exactly is being looked for in terms of content. Will definitely start looking up those articles to satisfy that. Also, i know you have gone over my article, but not sure if you actually read through it. Is there a way you can read over it and make edits, so that it somewhat aligns with standard, i.e. making it sound less biased? Until when do i have to move this article back into my userspace and is there a way i can petition editors to proof this article based on content (not references, notability, etc because I'm obviously going to start on that) to make it sound less biased before i move it into my userspace? ThanksNaiele3 (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AfD discussions are normally allowed to run for 7 days (168 hours). Sometimes when the result is obvious (See WP:SNOW), the discussion is closed before then. Other times when things are contentious and the result is not so clear, the discussion can then be relisted (See WP:RELIST) to try and develop a more clear cut consensus. Generally, discussions which have run the allotted time are reviewed by an administrator according to WP:AFD/AI. The result is not simply counting up the yeahs and nays and choosing the side that has more. The administrator will read the comments and make their decision based upon how the relevant policies and guidelines are being applied. So 20 "delete" votes opposed by 5 "keep" votes does not automatically ensure deletion because it's the quality of the arguments that matter not the quantity. As I stated before, if you want the article to userfied, then the closing admin is most likely to honor this unless there is a good reason not to or there is opposition from someone. Once it has been userfied, you will not be under any pressure to complete the article by a certain date and can pretty much work on it whenever. If, however, you leave it unedited for too long (say 6 months), then it could be tagged for speedy deletion as abandoned per WP:G13, but all have to do if that happens is start editing it again. Drafts and other user subpages are generally left alone by other editors unless there is a serious policy violation that requires immediate attention. So, you'll be free to edit as you please. You can of course ask for advice or assistance and places like the Teahouse, etc. Many experienced editors will be more than happy to review your draft and offer suggestions, but most will refrain from directly editing the draft unless you give them the OK to do so, When you feel you've got things just the way you want it, just resubmit the article via AfC. If it gets declined, don't get discouraged; just simply try and make the suggested improvements. You can also ask for assistance at Wikipedia: Requested articles to see if you can find an experienced editor to write the article for you or at a WikiProject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities to get specific advice for this particular type of article. Just in case you haven't noticed, Rich Farmbrough has made a number of improvements to the article, including the sourcing of some of the article content and adding banners for various WikiProjects to the article's talk page. Some of these were made while it was still a draft, so he probably will continue to help wherever he can. One last thing, sometimes less is actually better than more when it comes to getting an article accepted at AfC. There are things called stubs which sometimes get gradually expanded into articles over time. Also, well sourced smallish articles sometimes give off a more favorable impression than long articles filled with lots of unsourced information. Drafts can always be expanded after they've been approved as an article. It's probably better to discuss this with an AfC reviewer since each one probably looks for slightly different things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some new editors, typically single purpose accounts, decide that AFC is too painful an experience, and decide to try moving the article to article space themselves, only to discover that AFD is really a painful experience. The author should have left it in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i wouldn't be a single purpose account if i can get one offing article approved. So far, this is the most cumbersome process, why would you think i would have the sadistic desire to go through this again?!?!Naiele3
(talk) 02:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Naiele3: I don't think Robert was trying to insult you. He's an experienced AfC reviewer who has reviewed lots of drafts and is probably just speaking from experience. There's nothing wrong with being an SPA. It's just some SPAs focus so much on a single article/draft/genre that they sometimes seem more not here than here. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but there are plenty of examples of this seen everyday on Wikipedia and AfC reviewers probably see them more than other editors. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia besides article creation, so sometimes when you're stuck and need to recharge it helps to try and work on something else. Poking around in other articles or on noticeboards is also one way to become better familiar with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines and see how they are being applied by other editors. It's also a good way to discover things that you can use in your drafts. You are, after all, free to edit any article that you feel could use a little improving and things should be fine as long as your edits comply with relevant policy and guidelines. If, by chance, one of your edits is reverted, try to understand why and treat it as opportunity to learn something new. Most experienced editors will be more than happy to provide an explanation for anything they revert when asked to do so. The ride can surely get a little bumpy sometimes, but it can help you improve as an editor. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that you were an SPA, only that some new editors, typically but not always SPAs, will decide that AFC is too painful, and will move the draft to article space. You did that, and are discovering that AFD is much more painful than AFC. My thought is that you should have left the article in draft space, but you can correct your own mistake by moving it back to draft space. That will render this AFD moot. I suggest that you do just that. This draft does satisfy the minimal criteria to be kept in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftily, but with the knowledge that it will be salted if moved back to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by "salted"? Naiele3 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert is referring to WP:SALT. It's a method that may be used by an administrator to protecting a page (usually one deemed inappropriate for policy reasons) from being repeatedly recreated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no objection to returning the artcle to the userspace or the draftspace if the creator wants to continue to work on it there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
will you be doing this then, since you are gung-ho on its non-existence in the article space? Naiele3 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting another editor (and you are insulting another editor) is not the best way to get your article preserved in draft space or user space. However, what will happen is that this AFD will be closed by an administrator. If the consensus is Keep, it will be kept. If the consensus is Delete, the administrator will delete it, but you can request its undeletion to user or draft space. The more likely consensus will be to userfy it or draftify it, and it will be moved. As noted above, you can move it yourself, and the AFD will become moot. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially what happens is that the page is moved back to either the draftspace or userspace. I believe any editor can do it if its uncontroversial, but sometimes things are complicated and involve a bit of clean up and an administrator is needed. If this is what you would like to be done, then simply clearly state so and then the administrator/editor who closes this discussion will decide if that's appropriate and take care of things if it is. The only reason I can see this not being done per your request would be if any of items WP:USERFY#NO is applicable. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because moving creates a cross-namespace redirect, which may need deleting, it's often best for an admin to do the move. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

SPA Clarification[edit]

The purpose of this note is to further clarify my comments about Single Purpose Accounts. At Articles for Creation, many articles are submitted by an author who has no previous edit history. That is, their edits consist of a series of edits to compose the submitted article. In my opinion, these editors fall into two classes. The first is those who honestly want to contribute to Wikipedia for its good, not just their own, and who think that the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is to write a new article on a topic. While new articles that meet our standards are greatly appreciated, writing a new article is very seldom the best way for a new editor to contribute to the encyclopedia. New article writing, complete with references, is the most difficult task for Wikipedia editors. New editors are often better off to do other less difficult but still important jobs. One example (only one) is copy-editing of existing articles.

The second type of new editors who have no previous edit history is those who have a self-serving purpose, who have come to write an article about themselves, their company, their band, or something else in which they have an interest. They are common, and they are SPAs. (Not all SPAs are bad. SPAs who edit only in a particular area, but who are neutral and productive, are good. SPAs who edit with a conflict of interest are not good.) Some COI SPAs, that is, new editors who are in Wikipedia only for self-promotion, try to submit their articles through AFC, and then discover that it is a painful process (for articles that won’t ever be notable), and move them to article space, and then face AFD, a more painful process.

I don’t know whether the author in question is just a sister/alumna of the sorority, or is associated with the national office and is promoting it. I will assume good faith that she merely has chosen her sorority as her first effort to write a new article. As she can see, writing a new article is hard. There are other ways to help Wikipedia, and I invite her to explore them.

I hope that this clarifies my SPA comment, which was not about any one editor, but about a class of editors, some of whom are problematic. In any case, AFC is not as painful as AFD, so use it, and you are welcome to help out Wikipedia in other ways. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resume !votes and other comments[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This debate has been going on for two weeks, and so far, no truly significant coverage of this sorority in independent, reliable sources has been brought forward. If that coverage existed, I would be happy to support keeping the article. In the 1970s, I attended San Francisco State University where the sorority was founded, and am very friendly to the university and its student groups. But Wikipedia is not a directory of every student group on the planet. Such groups must be notable as Wikipedia defines that term, and it seems this group is not yet notable. No objection to moving the content to draft space or user space. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches simply did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This has been relisted repeatedly. If there isn't consensus, can we either please close it as No Consensus or decide that the strength of the arguments is for draftifying it or deleting it? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I agree with the nominator's review of the sources as being insufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I was unable to find significant coverage of the subject. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Muhammad Kaswar Gardezi[edit]

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

This article has no references backing up any statement within it. Although not a living person, article material should be verifiable from reliable sources. Most of the material in this article has been provided from three accounts which from the account names appear to be relatives of the article subject (an one is specifically named in the article as the father. 86.149.141.166 (talk) 11:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems to be notable - a few mentions, although brief, in books; only one news mention I could find describes him as "noted political leader and intellectual" (22nd anniversary of Syed Qaswar Gardezi on 11th, Balochistan Times, 10 September 2015) - the lack of news coverage could be because he died in 1993 and most news from then wouldn't be available online. Some of the external links appear to be references although they need checking for reliability and converting to inline references if applicable. Peter James (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good coverage in reliable sources for this pre-internet person. AusLondonder (talk) 08:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:34, 2 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. MBisanz talk 10:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbal Khan (actress)[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability in the text . References do not help to establish notability. One ref is her own web site and the other is the Pakistani equivalent of IMDB. Fails WP:GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, pending evidence of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has appeared in multiple notable films, this is enough to keep an article on an actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:33, 2 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, for now. Everyone seems to agree that the article needs work, and that a merge/redirect may be the right way to go. However, consensus is to give it time to work through the process. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luk-Chub[edit]

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

I can't find a good CSD criteria, and the author removed the PROD tag I placed on it. Anyhow, it does not appear to be notable enough, and it seems to be exactly what WP:NOTMANUAL is talking about. Peter Sam Fan 16:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect to a line in the Desserts and sweets section of Thai cuisine. There are tons of recipes for it (spelled this way and luk chup) in a quick search, so I suspect it's common, but the article as it is isn't encyclopedic or sourced, and it's not obvious there would ever be enough to merit its own entry. Pinball22 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It seams to be about Marzipan, which already has an article. The Portuguese word would be maçapão (or massapão, or marzipã). Anyway it seems to be from Arab origin, not Portuguese (but it is non surprising if it got to Thailand through the Portuguese). That would point to merge/redirect, but... Changing the main ingredient from almonds to green beans makes it a radically new recipe, which would warrant a keep (with much clean up needed). But it also feels like it is a strange large change... so we better check further if this is for real, which I have not tried to. - Nabla (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apparently while making them is a marzipan-like activity of squishing something up, sweetening it, and forming it into shapes, mung beans (which are called something that translates to "green bean" in Thai, it seems) are used. Here's a page explaining more. Pinball22 (talk) 18:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. Needing clean-up isn't reason for deletion, and notability is pretty clearly suggested by the multitude of Google hits. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and perhaps consult better familiar attention if this can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 9 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. The consensus is that he does not yet meet the notability criteria - if at a future time, he meets the criteria, then an article can be created at that time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam C. S.[edit]

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

Okay I put a prod up for this, but then I moved it for spacing. It then said the afd existed. I was originally going to do a csd previously deleted, but not sure if it should go up still. Either way-this is a BLP of someone who falls under too soon (it even says up and coming) Wgolf (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia contributions. I am a fan of this artist and found that he had no Wikipedia page. I did find a lot of information about him from other sources online. So I thought it would be a good idea to create one. I am collecting more references. I read from several sources that he has been signed for 7 more albums/films. His current album is a hit and many fans have expressed interest on finding more information about him on his album's Youtube videos etc. I was going to add more facts once I completed the process of collecting enough valid and respectable references and sources. I should probably remove the 'upcoming' word usage as he is pretty well known in the Tamil music and Film circles. In addition to this complete Album, one of the films for which he has composed and performed two tracks is an independent movie that has won the Best Tamil Film award in the Chennai International Film Festival. the article on this movie clearly credits his name. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orr_Eravuu I apologize if I have missed any guidelines, but I do think this artist deserves a Wikipedia article. Please help me correct and fix issues so that it may be allowed to stay. Thanks. Anithajoseph (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:: very much too soon. Per the one source, film is not due to be released until November 2016. Nothing in article paragraph even states notability. It is up to the article creator to establish that a person is notable and provide reliable sources to verify this. Fylbecatulous talk 09:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Added his background score credits linking to wikipedia pages of those movies. Also the film is not released, however, the album(soundtracks) have already been released and are widely appreciated by critics and audiences. Working on adding more references and content about forthcoming projects, career and reviews. Thanks. Anithajoseph (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best as still questionable for the needed notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - definitely WP:TOOSOON. Not enough in-depth coverage turned up in searches to show that they pass WP:GNG at this time. It might be a good idea to userfy until, and if, the person ever achieves enough notability. Onel5969 TT me 13:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move to Draft:Sam C. S. per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Here are three sources I found about the subject:
    1. Suganth, M (2015-10-17). "We have used live instrumentation: Sam CS". The Times of India. Archived from the original on 2016-05-16. Retrieved 2016-05-16.

      The article notes:

      Sam CS, who has worked as keyboard programmer and background score composer for around 10 films like Ambuli and Aaaah, has scored the music for Vijay Sethupathy's upcoming film Mellisai. The film is a romantic musical thriller and he says only live instruments have been used for its music.

    2. Srinivasan, Karthik (2015-10-24). "Hitman". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2016-05-16. Retrieved 2016-05-16.

      The article notes:

      Mellisai (Tamil)

      Music: Sam C.S.

      Sam C.S. (Sam Riyas), who debuted with a couple of songs in Ambuli 3D, gets his first solo soundtrack in Mellisai. He does very well, topping the album with a very Bondesque (if James Bond theme tunes were a genre) ‘Lola’. Maria Kavitha Thomas, who sings ‘Lola’ with the necessary feel beautifully, rolls the name Lola and seems like a fantastic choice to croon this one.

    3. "Vijay Sethupathi's Mellisai first look teaser". The Times of India. 2015-09-15. Archived from the original on 2016-05-16. Retrieved 2016-05-16.

      The article notes:

      The film features music by Sam C. S. and cinematography by Dinesh Krishnan.

    There is some reliable material about Sam C.S., but I don't think this is enough to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I recommend moving to draft so interested users can work on it when more reliable sources surface.

    Cunard (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - He appears to have only been mentioned tangentially in the above sources. This is rather an award case, at any rate, since he's clearly associated with a film that hasn't been released yet. Will it become well known? Will his work related to it get lots of coverage? Well, sheesh, we just don't know yet. It seems pretty clear that the present article ought to be deleted without prejudice to possible future recreation later on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:12, 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. The consensus is that the converage of the award is not in sufficient depth to meet the criteria to indicate notability. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future for Nature[edit]

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

I see no references except to its own web pages, and routine promotional articles and notices for people given the award. I note that not a single one of all of the winners are at this time considered notable at WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches are unfortunately finding nothing better and the current article is still not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The given reason to delete is lack of sources, yet I found a few sources in only a few minutes of searching:
These seem to suggest that the award is much more important internationally, even "prestigious", which means that most of the coverage is probably in other languages and simply not all that notable in, say, the U.S. Not trying hard enough to find sources is not a good enough reason to delete. Also, whether the winners are notable by Wikipedia standards is a straw man argument: completely irrelevant. -- RM 20:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's irrelevant whether any of the winners are notable. I don't think most winners of Macarthur Grants are notable, for isntances.
However, be careful about accusing others of "not trying hard enough to find sources". The two sources you provided aren't qualifying sources under WP:GNG. Each of them discusses a person who, it is mentioned, has won a Future for Nature award—and neither article says anything beyond that about Future for Nature. This isn't the required "significant coverage". —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should be more specific with my objections. The reason given for deletion states: no references except the ones mentioned (emphasis added). NatGeo is reliable reference, even if you believe it to be non-significant coverage, it is still a reference. -- RM 22:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, what would make an award / awarding organization notable? Fundraising coverage? or for giving the award (and why), since that is its raison d'etre. The source I cited does this: highlighting a recipient and going into detail as to what good things they've done to merit the award. Reliable sources on people who have received the award tells you the award is notable. The converse is not true: reliable sources about the award for non-notable people means the award, not the person, is notable. -- RM 22:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, NatGeo is a reliable source. A reliable source may support a finding of notability for a person to whom it gives substantial coverage. But it doesn't support a finding of notability for every single thing about the person to which it happens to make a passing reference. Given other reliable sources that give the person a comparable level of coverage to that received in the NatGeo article, it might support a finding that that person is notable. As for the award, the article merely mentions that it's a prize that this person has won, and then it never says another thing about it, and it says absolutely nothing about the organization awarding it. This helps with verifiability—few are likely to question the existence of the award—but not in the slightest with notability. (In case it helps clarify things, see the article on how notability is not inherited.)
See the general notability guidelines for information about what makes a topic notable. If you'd like, you can also look at the guidelines available for finding organizations to be notable. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You cited WP:ORG, so let's start there. "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". The coverage is not deep, that's obvious. But it's an award, how deep can it be? Expecting deep coverage is bordering on silly. It is, however, quite reasonable, required in fact, to expect multiple sources for the award. You can search the names of the winners (and guest of honors) along with the name of the award and you'll get quite a number of sources, almost every one of them in a different language. Once again, I bring back my original point: there are a lot of sources to be found, but this AfD isn't being raised because the sources are bad, but because there are not enough sources. This has not yet been established! Deletion is premature because we have not evaluated the existence or the reliability of these sources. I'll be happy to support a deletion if the sources turn out to be insufficient, but simple searches indicate enough basic coverage that deletion is not automatic. -- RM 01:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A passing reference isn't coverage at all. It's just that—a passing reference. You might find a thousand people who claim in their CVs "Won Award X", and 100 might have articles written about them that include a mention of Award X among their achievements, just because it was on their CVs, and it still won't be coverage of Award X.
Do you mean "passing reference" as in "trival mention" in WP:NOTE? If so, the mention of the award is not trivial and it is not required to be the main topic. And WP:SELFPUBLISH does not apply here. -- RM 02:00, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You say that "deletion is premature because we have not evaluated the existence or reliability of these sources". That's what this process is for. This is the period during which interested parties are asked to produce evidence of applicable coverage, once the initiating editor has expressed his doubts. If satisfactory coverage hasn't been demonstrated by the end of the discussion period, then the article will probably be deleted. If "there may be qualifying coverage that we just haven't found yet" were a valid argument in favor of keeping an article, then no article would be deleted the grounds of a lack of notability, ever. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about being unable to find sources, there are plenty. I've found over a dozen references in other languages. And they appear to support notability, to the best of my ability to determine this. If interested parties can assist, I can change my mind. -- RM 02:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you're keeping them a secret. Awesome strategy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. -- RM 13:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't try to filter out the good and bad here. These are mostly quick google news results. Running a standard google search on each subject would take quite a while. -- RM 13:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you have no idea whether any of these supports a finding of notability. I'm not saying that they don't, but your approach to this remains a bit oblivious. You seem to think that it's up to other people to do the work to support your claims. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly acceptable to choose to keep if the reason given for deletion is invalid. DGG did not state a policy reason for deletion, so I objected to that. There may be other reasons to delete, and that's fine. That's why it's a discussion. As for this list, I only ran the search a few minutes ago per your request. (It turns out I was wrong about my estimate on the number of sources. Memory is unreliable.). I already felt that the NatGeo source supported notability and gave my rationale for it. It's OK that you disagree. -- RM 13:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ORG disagrees with you. "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as: ... passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." Identifying a person as having won an award is comparable. It's quite clear from this what's meant by "passing mention". It isn't clear, if you think the mention in NatGeo was more than a passing one, what you imagine even less of a mention would consist of. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this is a passing reference: an aside. The NatGeo reference is not. The article begins and ends with a reference to Future for Nature. All indications are that NatGeo decided to run a biographical piece on the recipient because he won the award, not because he was otherwise notable. -- RM 15:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, there appears to be plenty of sources that at least mention the recipients of the awards: NatGeo, IUCN, semana.com (news), mongabay.co.id (news), mnn.com (news), gmanetwork.com (news), jpost.com (news), etc. I'm not going to rehash my argument here, if you don't accept it, fine. But it is not an argument based on nothing. -- RM 14:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 24 April 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, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while there are quite a few mentions, all appear to be of a trivial nature. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find (and this has been commented on above) example after example of news coverage in the form "Person X wins Y award: Person X feels happy". I've yet to see from what seem to be reliable sources any discussions on the award itself. I've plenty of sympathy for what the broader organization is trying to do, but I don't think that the award itself is that notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:17, 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. MBisanz talk 11:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Sparks[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Little coverage in reliable sources. Several sources cited don't even mention this person, and of those which do it's by name only, or one sentence. No significant awards or honours. Does not appear to have made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in her field. Also fails WP:NEQUESTRIAN. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC) Magnolia677 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the reappearance of this article (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Sparks ) appears to be based on Sparks recently receiving a "40 under 40 award" from the Ottawa Business Journal, given to "accomplished business leaders who are under the age of 40" in Ottawa. At least 680 people have received this award over the years, and this year, out of the 160 applicants, one in four received the award. While I applaud Mrs. Sparks for the achievement, I'm afraid the basic requirement of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" has still not been met. I wasn't able to find a single example via Google, and out of the 22 references in the article, only two were specifically about her. Both were published by Equine Canada; the second of which was announcement of her appointment to their board of directors. My main concern though, is that the article's (re)creator Beaverbrookottawa (contribs) may have an undisclosed conflict of interest with regards to Sparks. This warrants further review of edits to multiple Wikipedia articles about her immediate family and their business interests, which may be primarily promotional in nature. IamNotU (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not currently convincing for notably better. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to be fair, I thought I should point out a reference that was slipped into the article under the wire, before the user was blocked: [60] - an interview published in "Faces Ottawa" a free magazine with a circulation of 100,000 in Ottawa; and another reference to the magazine having named her "Entrepreneur of the Year for 2015": [61] I don't know about significant, reliable, and independent though, particularly considering the full-page ad from one "Andy Sparks Realty" on page 47 of the same issue, and the back cover ad from her father's Brookstreet Hotel (Wikipedia article created by Andy.w.sparks) on the previous issue, plus Brookstreet being one of the sponsors of the 2016 awards: [62]. Oh, billionaires... -- IamNotU (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:. Fails BIO for lack of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"; there is really only one source given, it isn't known to be reliable, and does not appear independent. Being the director of a barely notable equestrian park isn't notable by itself anyway. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I agree with all of above arguements for deletion. Not notable. ツStacey (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of this constitutes a strongly credible reason why a person would warrant coverage in an encyclopedia — and the referencing is about half primary sources and half media coverage which namechecks her existence but isn't about her, which isn't how you get a person over WP:GNG. It's not impossible for people of purely local notability to get into Wikipedia, but it takes a lot more sourcing and substance than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 11 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. The consensus is that she does not currently meet the notability criteria PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meggie Royer[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON author. WP:BEFORE comes up with no significant refs. National award mentioned in article was for a prize awarded to high-school students. Fails WP:GNG. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has already won an important national award.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Either TOOSOON or BLP1E. The award that she won is one that is given to 2000 entrants each year, so although it is an honor, it is not the same as being a single winner. here. I did find her award-winning works here. LaMona (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Royer's poetry has appeared/ she is listed as a contributor in/to numerous magazines/journals (not sure how notable they are - none have wikiarticles) ie. (in addition to those mentioned in the article) [63] Cleaver Magazine, [64] Open Minds Quarterly, [65] Grey Sparrow Journal, [66], Phree Write Magazine [67], The James Franco Review [68], Red Rose Review [69], Crack The Spine Literary Magazine [70], Vine Leaves Literary Journal. However, this does not count towards notability, according to WP:POETRY the subject needs to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:CREATIVE, ie. "created .. a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.", having the work(s) appear in magazines is not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coolabahapple, I'm not sure what you are saying in the last sentence of your comment-- the phrasing is unclear with the quote. In any case, the links you give are for publications of her work rather than "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" about her work, which is what is needed. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now I get what you are saying. How are you voting? You seem to be saying that sources are weak.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HappyValleyEditor, as afd is not a vote, occasionally (very occasionally) i only comment. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I, for one, always appreciate your comments. Onel5969 TT me 13:36, 13 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. MBisanz talk 11:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church Vettithara[edit]

St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church Vettithara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It is essentially an orphan and does not even say where it is. The normal outcome is that we only keep local churches if they are notable for other reasons - architecture, contents, involvement in particular events, etc. I see nothing notable about this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a considerably trimmed version to Syrian churches of Kerala. There is a considerable whiff of Westocentrism here, if you consider how many totally non-notable US churches are able to easily establish "notability" by local papers etc, and how difficult it is for South Indian churches to demonstrate this from the internet, especially in the English language, given local conditions. Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The page is edited and added more details, references also added in the current page including local news paper news. The presence of relic of Mother Mary in this church makes it famous and important. The rare portion of this relic is enshrined in only a few churches in the world. So this church cannot be considered as one amoung many. There is a limitation give the link of the newspaper news as the link of the local newspaper will be deleted automatically from their webportal after a couple of days of publishing the news. This article will be a usefull reference for the people who do the research about Soonoro Churches and Marian shrine. Following are the reference which shows the importance of this church.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] bibinkvjacob 10:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.mathrubhumi.com/ernakulam/malayalam-news/piravam-1.833005
  2. ^ http://syrianyouthvoice.blogspot.ae/2012/01/blog-post_29.html?m=1
  3. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-fridayreview/the-revered-relic/article5097889.ece
  4. ^ http://sana.sy/en/?p=10227
  5. ^ http://www.soc-wus.org/page.php?id=109
  • keep - The page seems to be informative, this church is notable by the presence of Holy Relic of Mother of Jesus Christ. This churches attracts a lot of people every year during its feast days. This is one of the important church of Syrian Orthodox in Kerala. So this page should be keep as like this. The references in the regional language is true and can be accepted in the reference link. mathewsvettithara 13:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — mathewsvettithara (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • keep - St. Mary's Jacobite Syrian Church Vettithara is one of the important churches in Malankara Syrian Orthodox church. The church become an important one by the presence of Holy Relic of Virgin Mary. There is no dought that this church attracts many people. arunmathews84 20:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — arunmathews84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's nothing solidly convincing to suggest keeping and improving, we can wait for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I edited in the article. It is clearly a notable church, a landmark explained in multiple sources. I think it is even notable as a place atop a hill per wp:GEOLAND. The suggestion to "wait for a better article" appears to be an acknowledgement that the topic is notable. We don't delete stubs or weak articles on notable topics; it is appropriate to tag them for improvement but this is not AFD justification. --doncram 02:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable and little coverage from any reliable or independent sources. Note that two of the keep votes appear to be from sock/meat puppets. Omni Flames let's talk about it 03:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting based on new arguments from Esquivalience Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not pass my standards for historic church buildings. Neither it nor the village it is in are listed in DK's Eyewitness Travel Guide to India. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 10 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Biddulph[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as a local councillor in a municipality not large enough to get its local councillors over WP:NPOL just for being councillors. Only internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Toronto or London get an automatic presumption of notability for their municipal councillors, but this municipality is not in that range. And of the two references here, one is to his own primary source profile on his own political party's website and the other is to a news article which namechecks his existence in the process of failing to be about him, which means WP:GNG has not been met either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality has sixty wards and he's the councillor of Ward 2. Which means there are 59 other councillors. I tried looking for any of their articles but I don't think there are any. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is a local counselor of a significant municipality, although I am still unclear how the actually role of him over Nelson Mandela Bay compares to city councilors for Port Elizabeth, or even if Port Elizabeth has a seperate government. I am not sure if this is city council v. county commission as one would see in parts of the US, or if it is slightly different. In the case of city council v. County Comission, at least in cases like Detroit City Council v Wayne County Comission or Chicago City Council v Cook County Commission, the later are further from default notability than the former. Still in all cases I would insist on us having indepth coverage of the person, not fact checking and party profiles. Nelson Mandela Bay has just over 1 million people, but still less than Wayne County, Michigan, and I would not default give a Wayne County Comissioner notability pass, so in this case as well I say delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We do have articles on past Detroit City Council members like Gil Hill and Keith Butler. However Hill made his presence on the city council noted, and was especially followed when he ran for mayor. He also has notability from his acting career, even if it was short. Butler is also a prominent community member and minister, ran for the Republican senate nomination, and is currently a Republican National Committee member. He is also the only publicly acknowledged Republican to have been on the Detroit City Council since before World War II, but since the council elections are non-partisan, it is not clear what percentage of council members identify with a given political party, although many clearly identify as Democrats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN. Councilor for a major municipality in an under-represented continent. Wikipedia's systemic bias against non-western countries should give us significant caution when considering deletion of elected figures representing over a million people in Sub-Saharan Africa.--TM 15:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard that a city has to meet to get its city councillors over WP:NPOL just for being city councillors is not just "major municipality" — something which any city with a population of as little as 50 or 60 thousand could claim to be. Rather, it's "internationally significant global city", on the order of New York City, Toronto, London or Tokyo. For anything below that rarefied class of cities, a municipal councillor has to be explicitly shown to pass WP:GNG — but we're at complete zero for GNG-worthy sourcing here. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable for the necessary independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while there may be bias at play here, it is not on Wikipedia's part, but on the media's. Bearcat's assessment regarding councilors is spot on, and searches simply did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show this person passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:33, 13 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lubeidak[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM JMHamo (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  19:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>*Delete as non-notable.I have changed my opinion on the topic. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

digging further:
alt(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
director:alt(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
co-director/star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
topic:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Ashok Mishra Premalata Das Sushanta Adhikari Lopamudra Productions
  • Keep After learning that this pre-internet film won multiple State Film Awards (a decent assertion of notability), I decided to give the thing a face-lift under MOS:FILM . While difficult to find, sources are available... so this will benefit from editorial attention, not deletion. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and not confidently as this could be better but the Award may be the only solid lifeline for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:12, 2 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. czar 02:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Kapil Sharma Show episodes[edit]

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

Contested prod by a IP, anyway uneeded episode list, the show is not only in just its first season, so far just 3 episodes-if not delete, a redirect to the show. But for now I say delete. As this is too soon and Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Wgolf (talk) 00:43, 2 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 per a consensus that the topic is premature for article space... but since it was requested, a copy will be userfied to User:Svigeant/workspace/Pro8mm for further work. Schmidt, Michael Q. 05:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro8mm[edit]

Pro8mm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability for companies. A majority of the sources used here are unreliable or otherwise don't discuss the company itself. There is some mention of its use in some productions, but notability is not inherited. Opencooper (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had orginally thought this was a notable company becuase of its vintage product the Super 8 Sound recorder. However, the lineage between the two products/companies is unclear, and in any case if there's notability it's just for that sound recorder. The film itself does not get many hits. Among Super-8 companies, there are only a few that are truly notable (Kodak, Beaulieu). Pro8Mm is essentially manufacturing accessories and services for filmmakers, so it is not surprising that it's not notable. For example, Matthews Studio Equipment in Hollywood makes the best grip stands in the world, but hey, they're not particularly notable. The same goes for this company. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:HappyValleyEditor. I couldn't find any good sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I am the author of this article. I believe the content does meet the notability guidelines. All products listed in this article are inventions that have made major contributions in the Super8 film community. These are not simple accessories that this company happens to produce well, these are innovative film stocks invented by this company. All these inventions have been covered in well respected film magazines, several of which are cited as sources. Sources were taken from a film colleges database (Chaffey College). The Super8 sound recorder was invented by this company when it was still operating under the name Super8Sound (the company later changed it's name to Pro8mm). Please let me know if there is anything I can do/add to prove article is notable and sources are reliable. Svigeant (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you can do is show the coverage in those specific magazines.
The first reference is to the pro8mm website. The second is written by Bob Doyle himself. The third is American Cinematographer, which is reliable. The fourth is a periodical titled Film & Video which I cannot find any information on. The fifth reference just talks about Super 8 film, nothing about the company. The sixth just talks about a Super 8 camera from Kodak. The seventh and eight sources talk about their Max8 format. The ninth mentions about how it is distributing the Logmar S-8. The final two sources mention how their cameras were used in the documentary It's About You.
Overall these sources do not show in depth coverage of the company itself. The only one that does that is the American Cinematographer source and that's in the context of Super8Sound. Maybe with more sources the notability for Max8 could also be considered. As I noted in the nomination, these sources discuss specific products and their use in specific media rather than the company itself. Notability is not inherited from these nor from the general Super 8 format itself. The sources do not justify a standalone article on the company and Max8 is already mentioned in Super 8 film. Opencooper (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you are saying. Let me look for more articles that talk specifically about the company.
Some of these sources--although do not discuss the company itself are there to show "proof" what I am writing is truthful. For example, the point of source 5 is to show Mazzy Star really used that film stock. Similarly source 6 shows that Kodak jumped on the bandwagon of color negative. The invention of Color Negative use for Super 8 film by Pro8 was the most significant advancement in the format over the past 35 years. Today almost all Super 8 filmmaking uses this invention. It has been so significant even Kodak has followed in Pro8mm footsteps by manufacturing this product. The point of this source was to show that this invention was so important that a major company like Kodak started manufacturing it. The 7 and 8th sources are from Indie Slate and Independent film which are established magazines in the film community...I hear what your saying about them specifically talking about Max 8 and not the company in general but Max 8 was an invention by this company. I believe that they are reliable sources that do belong on this page. Again the final 2 sources are just to prove I am being truthful and stating that that Max8 was used in the John Mellencamp film.
How long will I have to work on this before it is deleted? I know there are more articles about Pro8mm from American Cinematographer and other magazines out there. I just didn't use them for this article because I thought Pro8's inventions would be the most appropriate for a wiki page rather then other articles done about the company and things they have worked on that did not have significant contributions to the Super 8 film industry.Svigeant (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is all about verifiability so I can respect that. Deletion discussions stay open for a week and whether or not the article is deleted will be determined by a closing admin based on the arguments presented. Opencooper (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: Do the published magazine articles need to be incorporated into this article or is the fact that they exist enough for notability. For example, American Cinematographer has done several articles on Pro8mm but they do not necessarily go with the content of this article. If I can show you that they exist is that enough for notability or do they need to be incorporated into this wikipedia article?Svigeant (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean they don't "go with the content"? Wikipedia is meant to summarize all of the relevant literature on a topic; if they discuss Pro8mm, it would be worth incorporating. Purposely omitting information because it is unsavory would violate our neutrality policies. Unless you mean it is only tangentially related. Also while I said American Cinematographer is a reliable source, don't hesitate to list any other independent sources you find since multiple reliable sources are needed to establish notability. To answer your question, you just have to show that the references exist to establish notability. Opencooper (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the information. I was not omitting these articles because of anything unsavory but more because the topics weren't major contributions to the film industry. For example, an article (published in a well known film magazine) about Pro8's work in a specific feature film...although interesting, I did not think this information was "important enough" to warrant being in this wikipedia article. It sounds to me that it is better if I include all of this to show the notability of the company. I will try and put some work into this and hopefully it will satisfy the guidelines. I really appreciate all your help, I think I have a better understanding of the issues now. Also--I will try to do this before it is taken down but if I can't get it done this week is there any problem with me re doing and re posting it when I do have the time?Svigeant (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Svigeant: you may always ask that the article be placed temporarily in a user workspace as you address issues and then check back with more experienced others to see if notability criteria are met. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MichaelQSchmidt: That would be great. I had hoped to have time this evening to work on it but it doesn't seem that will happen. Is there a way to convert the article to the user space? Or do I just copy and paste the content? Please let me know Svigeant (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Svigeant: If/when deleted, simply ask the discussion closer (or even me) and we'll take care of your getting a copy. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still questionable at best for the needed article improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 9 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. MBisanz talk 11:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Soj (rapper)[edit]

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

This article is about a Sudanese rapper with no coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability in general or specifically as a musician. There are four references in the article. They are:

  1. a page from a web hosting service that allows anybody to create their own sports team web site. Not a reliable source
  2. Some sort of community based, no-for-profit news portal which might possibly be a reliable source, but the reference makes not mention of Clement Soj nor could I find any mention of him when using the search function for the site. Not a usable source.
  3. The official web site of the artist. Not independent coverage.
  4. The same sports team web site from reference 1. Not a reliable source. Whpq (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete I have mixed opinions about this article, we really need to improve Wikipedia's coverage in South Sudan and this looks like an interesting individual. However there is barely nothing out there about him or his music, all the sources are unreliable as Whpq mentioned, and even the subject's Twitter page has more to do with him being a Real Madrid fan than actually anything music related. For the moment simply not notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truth

I would like to say that Clement Soj is truly South Sudanese singer, but do you know why you did not get any mention of him on independent websites? It is because he is still a student of senior 1. On date 1 of June of 2015 he was invited to the radio station run by United Nations Mission In South Sudan to be interviewed, but unfortunately he refused to go to the Radio Miraya station, saying; it is not good for me to go and waste my time on silly things, he said he wants to complete his study first. Though he is well valued singer, he refuses to upload his songs. Iam a writer or creator of this article, so if you think that Iam lying, please contact Clement Soj on Facebook or Twitter and find out more concerning him. Here is a link that proves: Events — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorthiem (talk • contribs) 22:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of whether we believe that the material in the article is true, but whether the topic meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines to justify an article. -- Whpq (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still nothing suggesting the needed article notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 9 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_May_2&oldid=1142621458"