Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 May	4 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Nakon 02:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pirai Thaediya Naatkal[edit]

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

Only has 2 references, per WP:NFF, this article should be deleted or moved to the draft namespace. Pokéfan95 (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upcoming film that has not yet begun shooting, does not meet WP:NFF.JackTracker (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

actor:(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)

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

WP:INDAFD: Pirai Thaediya Naatkal Abraham Prabu Ashok Selvan Ritu Varma Eros International

Delete until filming is confirmed. Note Pokéfan95, an article having just two sources is not a proper deletion rational, specially when more are available.[1][2] When filming is confirmed, we can simply resurrect this and expand and source it further. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:19, 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 keep. Nakon 02:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WyzAnt[edit]

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

No evidence of any significant notability here. Regurgitated press releases and niche publications doesn't add up to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – See WP:NEXIST and WP:BEFORE. The topic comfortably passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Many of these sources were easily found using the Find sources template atop this nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Las Vegas Sun
Entrepreneur
Crains.
TechCrunch
TechCrunch
Chicago Tribune
Crains

Keep WP:GNG..--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NA1k & Tony - Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 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 redirect to Dowsing. This is binding only insofar as there is clear consensus here that this should not be a separate article. Editorial consensus may subsequently determine how to address the potential redirect targets, e.g., through hatnotes or disambiguation. Sandstein 21:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earth radiation[edit]

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

Non-notable fringe science, no reliable sources found. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough reliable sources discuss this topic. In the past it was submitted for afd with agreement to find reliable sources, but none were ever added. I had to remove two sources because they had been cited incorrectly. Note that the last afd was a vote to Redirect to Outgoing longwave radiation. HealthyGirl (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. HealthyGirl (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is notable, then WP:FRIND-compliant sources should be straightforward to locate. This doesn't seem to be the case. jps (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Dowsing. There's nothing remotely notable enough about this subject except for its connection to dowsing. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to outgoing longwave radiation with a hatnote there pointing to dowsing but frankly I cannot imagine a satisfying writing for that hatnote.

The problem is that there are two potential redirect targets, Outgoing longwave radiation and Dowsing (with some merging to the target in the second case), which are radically different interpretations of the term. Readers could legitimately come looking for one and end up on the other confused, if we were to simply redirect.

Even though I could not find any FRIND-compliant source for the use in dowsing context, my browsing convinced me beyond reasonable doubt that the term is widely used. As such, I would have no problem with a redirect to dowsing per WP:R#KEEP #3 even if there is no source. I failed to find a guideline that mandates ironclad sourcing for redirects, and even if there was one it would be a great time to invoke WP:IAR. However, I feel much less comfortable with the inclusion of any visible text (such as a DAB page) when no RS is available.

A cynic way to proceed would be to keep the article with the following "reliable source": [3] (peer-reviewed, published by Elsevier!), cherry-pick the sentence "In folklore, earth radiation has been strongly linked with the search for radiation zones and lines and has included the use of the forked rod." and pretend to ignore the rest of the article (which is garbage).Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting to Outgoing longwave radiation is a wonderful idea. I still think some of the text could be salvaged for use in Dowsing, but I'm not sure how much. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It actually was a redirect after the last AFD but was restored a few years later.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor issue, but worth noting. Two references that were added to the article do not mention earth radiation in the context of what this article is about. User Nixdorf added these here at the bottom of the article [4] in 2007 claiming they offer a skeptic view (one is by Steven Weinberg, the other is a mainstream geophysics textbook), but these books do not even discuss occult concepts or this type of 'earth radiation' from a dowsing point of view, nowhere at all in either of these books is it mentioned. Why this user added these books I am not sure. We should always be suspicious when random books are added but no page numbers. Move forward to 2009, and user Hrafn [5] actually inserted them as citations into the article, obviously without checking these sources. Note that since 2009 those references have remained on the article. We are now in 2016. So we have two false references on the article that do not even mention this type of earth radiation, yet those sources remained on the article for 7 years until I just removed them. This is the sort of thing in my opinion that damages Wikipedia. I understand that this is a crackpot subject that probably not many people care about and I don't even see how this article has survived for so long, but users should really spend time in examining sources and make sure they have been cited correctly. HealthyGirl (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the references if they were confusing :( these were taken from the Swedish sceptic Hanno Essén very critical essay Tomtar, troll och Currykryss (literally "Gnomes, Trolls and Curry-line-crossings) and this article per se was also linked from the WP article itself at this point. At the end of the article he references a few books pro- and con- the earth radiation theory, the two books by Manfred Curry and Ernst Hartmann we still reference on the "pro-" side and the two books (Robinson & Coruh, Weinberg) were the only English literature listed as "con-". I agree it is not a good practice, but also note that this was in 2007, and WP (especially the quality standards and citation practices) have improved since. I guess we all mature as editors and people as time goes along, also the crowd as a whole. Nevertheless I think your stance is a bit agressive, so can you please take it down a notch? We're two sceptics criticizing a third sketic source as source of proper sceptic links, it's a bit tragic. Nixdorf (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to dowsing, with a hatnote about black-body radiation from Earth. The term "Earth radiation" seems only to occur in the context of dowsing. There don't seem to be any references to it outside the dowsing community. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is pseudoscientific but widespread, especially in Europe, and therfore has encyclopedic interest. Nixdorf (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can some evidence be provided to show this is is widespread in Europe?--67.68.163.254 (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above, Nixdorf added two books to the article that do not even discuss this type of earth radiation. Considering that those false references were left on the article for seven years, anything this user says should be properly checked. There is not a shred of evidence it is 'widespread'. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if the references were erroneous, but can you please take down the snarkiness a bit? I do not remember what reference these books come from any longer, and sorry if I did a mistake. But I am only trying to help. Nixdorf (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So as for the question, there is an organization called Svenska Slagruteförbundet (literally "Swedish Dowsing association) in Sweden, they refer to the phenomenon as jordstrålning/earth radiation in their periodical Slagrutan (for example here, the whole issue is centered about "harmful earth radiation"). The periodical is a printed one, published four times a year since 1982. There is a sceptic organization named Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning who have repeatedly criticized the phenomenon in their periodical Folkvett (ISSN 0283-0795), also referring to "jordstrålning/earth radiation" as the topic of critique (for example here and here, they are also linking to the Swedish wikipedia so things admittedly become a bit circular). A prominent sceptic, Jesper Jerkert, has published a critical essay, Slagrutan i tro och folkbildning on the subject. The popular science periodical Allt om Vetenskap also criticize dowsing/earth radiation. The claim above that the concept is closely associated with dowsing is correct, however dowsing is seen as an instrument and earth radiation as the purported object of investigation. Nixdorf (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to dowsing. The "suggested explanations' section there already speaks of "emanations" DeVerm (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggested a redirect to outgoing longwave radiation, and I still think it is the correct target for "earth radiation", but "earth rays" is more dowsing-like. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:11, 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. czar 02:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hilton Cowie[edit]

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

Non-notable former racing driver. The only coverage I can find about him are profiles here from the article and a little better here from sites that apparently profile all drivers. —teb728 t c 02:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC) Oh, I see now that the second one is the source of the copyvio that was deleted from the article. If he were notable, it could have been rewritten into the article. —teb728 t c 02:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 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 22:37, 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 delete. First, there is clear consensus that the article does not meet WP:GNG. All objections (and there are not so many) appeal in some form to WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is not a good argument to object deletion. Having said that, I acknowledge that many voters raised a valid point, and it would be good to have an RfC which could decide on notability criteria for beauty contest participants/winners, rather than blank-nominate all of them for AfD. Interested users are encouraged to start such an AfD.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

María José Torrenegra[edit]

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

Non-notable person who won a beauty contest in 2006, and, er, that's it. The rest of the article is PR fluff; the one reference cited no longer works. A Google search doesn't bring up any information about her. She doesn't even have an article on the Spanish Wikipedia, so she can't be that important. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The dead link in the article has a copy at the Wayback machine. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Larry, you are quite correct. Still, all the news article says is that all the Miss World contestants sang in Beijing, and contains a quote from Miss Torrenegra saying that it was important to participate in the country where the-then upcoming Olympic Games were to be held, and how pleased she was to represent her country... not exactly a citation that adds much of value to her Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I tried to clean it up, but there's not much substance to this article. static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 20:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't agree with some of the nom's reasoning (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST), and project WP:BEAUTY offers little guidance, but I do agree that there's precious little out there about her, other than her contest win. That's just not enough. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, whether she has a Spanish Wiki article is neither here nor there. Richard3120 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: 91 articles in Category:Miss World 2007 delegates, so part of a series. If being a contestant confers notability, then it's enough even if there is little else. That said, if participation alone is insufficient, then I would probably move to weak delete. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Montanabw has opened up a wider area of discussion here. Looking at other entries under that category, many of them are also little more than one paragraph supported by a single, sometimes unreliable, source. I wonder what criteria WP:BEAUTY had for notability, and whether they should be reviewed. But that's a separate argument to this one. Richard3120 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing else suggesting the necessary notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I suspect that in this case, most of the sources would be in Spanish, so maybe we can get a Spanish-speaking editor over here to look? If not, then delete. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I came across this article coming from WP:COLOMBIA, and I put this article up for deletion because I couldn't find much in the way of Colombian references either. For example, here is the online article regarding Miss Torrenegra's win from Colombia's major national newspaper, El Tiempo – as you can see, it's not fantastically informative. However, I can see it might cause problems with WP:BEAUTY if I ask for this to be deleted, because as I have indicated above it would then call into question a lot of the existing articles on Miss Universe contestants: in the interests of fairness I'm going to post a message on the project's talk page linking to this AfD and ask for their opinions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not simply that the subject was a contestant at Miss World; it's also that she first won the Miss Colombia pageant that year. To put this in perspective, I note that every Miss America winner has her own article, as does every winner of Miss USA. And so does every winner of Miss Teen USA. Because I'm not comfortable with setting different (and tougher) standards for pageants hosted outside the United States, being a national-level winner of a pageant that feeds one of the "big four" international pageants should be considered inherently notable. On a slightly different tack, a few months ago there was an attempt to foster some discussion of notability over on the Talk page of WP:BEAUTY. It didn't seem to go anywhere, but perhaps it would be worthwhile to try again. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NewYorkActuary, I did see that notability discussion that you mention – I also noted that the first comment was that many articles on former beauty queens had been put up for deletion recently, and as an outsider it isn't hard to see why: looking at a few of the articles belonging to former Miss USA and Miss Teen USA winners, many of them are completely unsourced. I think therein lies the project's problem – other editors are coming across the articles from WikiProject <country> or WP:BIO or whatever and finding that they fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Just because Miss Torrenegra won Miss Colombia doesn't mean she necessarily passes notability for having her own article on Wikipedia, and I'm afraid the same could be said for many of the Miss USA and Miss Teen USA winners as well. I appreciate that it's the goal of the project to have articles for all winners of beauty contests worldwide, and that's commendable, but I do think WP:BEAUTY urgently needs to establish some notability guidelines (at least having one reference from a reliable source), otherwise the project is going to continue to find itself having to defend deletion proposals. Richard3120 (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 It sounds like we both agree that there needs to be some community consensus as to how these articles should be treated. And if that discussion ever gets re-started over at the WikiProject talk page, I'll be happy to participate. But right now, we have the question of whether to keep an article on a national-level winner, even if that article is going to be a permanent stub. And without a clear guideline telling us different, our treatment of the winners of non-U.S. pageants should be the same as that given to winners of the U.S. pageants. As I noted above, I take this position because I'm not comfortable with establishing a double standard (i.e., U.S. winners are given a de facto pass on the general notability guidelines, whereas non-U.S. winners are not). By the way, there are plenty of areas on Wikipedia in which the notability guidelines are not applied at the level of the individual article, but at some higher level. For example, the general notability guidelines are not applied to professional baseball players (simply having played in the major leagues is enough for a stand-alone article, e.g. Hezekiah Allen). Being an Olympic athlete is pretty much enough to get a stand-alone article, even if the athlete didn't get beyond the first round of competition and had no other athletic career of note. The common factor here seems to be a belief that competition at the field's highest level makes one inherently notable. And so, the instant question is whether winning a national-level pageant, and thus qualifying for international competition, triggers that same notion of "inherent notability". I think it does but, more importantly, we already have a community consensus that it does, provided the pageant was held in the U.S. Until WP:BEAUTY decides otherwise, we should extend that same notion to the non-U.S. winners, as well. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But surely there is a clear guideline for general notability: that the information is verifiable and comes from a reliable source. This is true across the whole of Wikipedia – and, slightly off topic here, for me one of Wikipedia's major problems is that it doesn't enforce this very basic guideline, and thus we have tens of thousands of stub articles which are unreferenced or unreliably referenced, and really have no place on Wikipedia... I think this is undermining Wikipedia's credibility. To get back to the topic, I do understand that WP:BEAUTY wants to have comprehensive coverage of all beauty pageant contestants, which is great, but your argument does seem a bit WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to me. Anyway, we've both made our points and I'll leave it to admin to decide what to do here. Thank you for voicing your opinions on this subject. Richard3120 (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've weighed in on many pageant winner AfDs over the years. Essentially what I have seen is that a contestant who wins the primary pageant of that country (in almost any country of any size), typically these are kept, as sourcing can be found that shows the subject meets WP:GNG. This subject won Miss Mundo Colombia in 2007, which feeds to Miss World; she did not win Miss Colombia. Miss World and Miss Earth winners simply don't seem to fare as well at AfD or in the press as Miss Universe country winners do.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Considering that she won a pageant almost a decade ago, and did not win the "bigger" pageant, and given that there is no other information on her since then, this is really a case of WP:BLP1E. As stated earlier, there are no sources available to support notability, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also applies with respect to the existence of a category of contestants. Articles have to stand on their own merits. MSJapan (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this would seem to me to be be a WP:BLP1E case. Other "Miss xxx entrant/winner" articles existing is not a reason for this to exist (perhaps a lot of those could do with pruning...); I do not see evidence that this person meets the notability criteria. A possible solution (if suitable sources could be found) would be to create a "Miss xxx pageant winners" article with a paragraph for each one, with what little sourcing is available - however, that would be a project for someone else to consider. As it stands, this article does not meet the criteria for a stand-alone article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: When a biography is part of a series, actually, yes, it does pass the OTHERSTUFF threshold. Montanabw ^(talk) 18:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a person who wins a beauty contest or two, if that is all they appear to have done, is not thereby notable. If there are other articles that fall into the same situation as this one, that is an argument for AFDing those articles, not for keeping this one. SJK (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm in total agreement. This looks like a particularly glaring case of WP:BLP1E, and, even then, it's not as if her past win was a gigantic achievement to the point that it's received notable news coverage since. As has been said in these such discussions over and over again, being accomplished in personal terms is not the same thing as being notable. The article should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the consensus has grown that winning a single, less-known contest as a model does not make one notable. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suppose if we are working toward a consensus that, for example, being a Miss Universe contestant meets the criteria, but Miss World contestants to not (only the winners or highest-placing contestants), I could live with that. I just want to be sure that we don't get into a "Miss USA is notable but Miss Uruguay is not" thing, Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Miss USA is notable but Miss Uruguay is not" -- no, that should not happen. However, it's certainly possible that the situation could arise where a particular Miss USA was notable but Miss Uruguay was not - or vice versa. It would not be a blanket statement based on their title, but rather on meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mimi Super Market[edit]

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

There are not enough description about the notability of the article. It is not able to fulfill WP:Places of local interest criteria. There are several shopping malls like that such well known in Chittagong, but all of them are not notable per Wikipedia:LOCAL. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 03:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Panchlaish Thana. I am not sure about reliability and coverage in sources used (some are non-English), others look strictly local. Still, might as well preserve this to enhance the small article about the locality. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

support to delete. Kayser Ahmad (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no merge as there's simply nothing at all to suggest better, either for keeping by history logs with the merge or keeping entirely. Nothing for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:23, 2 May 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 // 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The quality of sources and their depth do not convincingly demonstrate WP:GEOFEAT notability. The only content available to be merged is the name. Featured articles about locations mention specific shopping malls only if they are the largest, oldest, or otherwise distinctive. Nothing in the sources sets this apart from the other ten or so run-of-the-mill shopping centers in the Panchlaish Thana area of the city, so not worth merging. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Worldbruce. - Mar11 (talk) 09:56, 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. After three relistings it does not seem that there is going to be any more input, and the article has not been improved any. This is a WP:Soft delete; any admin can restore it on request. MelanieN (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Education Resource Organization[edit]

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

The references provided are well below the standard required to establish notability. One is a pod cast and the others are niche sources. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches are not finding anything outstandingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and SwisterTwister. Non-notable by standards of WP:GNG and WP:ORG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddcm8991 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Neither the current state of sourcing in the article nor the fact that some people don't find coverage are good reasons to delete. The organization appears significant enough, and has arguably received sufficient coverage for inclusion, e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 24 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} 12:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For discussion on sources provided by Michig. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:23, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 10:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hit (2016)[edit]

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

Premature. The film might become notable once it is released but currently it does not meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. (Note that the proposed deletion templates were removed twice.) Pichpich (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON especially considering that it's a smaller movie. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found two sources, both of which look to be small articles written in a local newspaper. Local sources tend to be depreciated on here since it's easier for a local person to gain coverage, however even if this wasn't the case these sources still wouldn't show the in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:NFF. I did clean the article up to remove the promotional puffery and on a side note, I've also blocked the article creator as a promotional username, since it's the same as the company producing the movie. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

zeroing in:

studio:(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)

working title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)[13]

Keep. "Smaller movie" is not a negative criteria for film and WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a criteria for sources. As a stub article which can grow overtime and through regular editing, we're fine with what is now sourcing the improved article as per guideline they address the topic directly and in detail. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article looked like this when I voted. Those are all IMDB links. I could find no sources, mostly likely due to its name. There were sources added afterwards. Because it didn't seem to be a very notable film in the WP:PRAGMATIC sense as in it's a "smaller movie", I didn't scavenge the internet for sources to rescue this article. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Mr. Magoo: I fully understand that it looked quite poor when brought to AFD, and the common name did cause difficulties, but I chose to practice my own due diligence and look toward possibilities when something simply needs work. No harm. No foul. If it were not improvable, I would have gladly opted for deletion. Heck, many of these 686 looked as bad or worse. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the look that was the problem but the dearth of any coverage. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per MichaelQSchmidt. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 25 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 // 21:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete aside from material obviously written by the film's producers (which isn't independent of them) and IMDB the only sources are two articles in the same local newspaper. This is problematic for a number of reasons: the news organisation probably isn't terribly reliable, the articles mostly consist of quotes from people involved in the production of the film, and we generally require multiple sources from different people/organisations to demonstrate significant coverage per WP:GNG. I wasn't able to find more impressive sources and there's no indication that any of the other WP:NFILM criteria are met. I would advise waiting until the film is released - if it gets enough reviews then we could certainly have an article on it then. Hut 8.5 21:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation later. According to WP:NFILM, "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." The film will probably receive better and more general sourcing after it is released, and at that time the article can be restored and expanded. It could be userfied now if anyone volunteers to take it on. I looked for a redirect but could not find any likely target; apparently none of the people associated with this film have articles here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 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 voters do not agree on whether there is sufficient coverage for the article to pass WP:GNG, but those who think it does not clearly prevail. The article can be restored on request to user space or to draft space.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unleashed (events)[edit]

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

Don't see anything in the references that establish notability. Imo this is a promotional article, although I have stripped out the more egregious bubbles o'guff. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:TheLongToneThank you for your reviewing/stripping of the article, I would like to edit this article to make it more befitting of the available wiki guidelines. Notability in references is hard to come by as an event organisation, while speaking about it in text (international visitors, content of shows/stage design/concept, etc) easily creates this promotional tone. If I compare this article to other large (fetish) club events, even ones that are just active in one country, I feel that we have supplied the correct information (now improved by your stripping) and amount of references via notable performers and designers. Examples: German fetish ball, Wasteland, etcetera. Would a table with an overview of previous events be of additional value in this? I will research further options, suggestions are very welcome as I am not experienced in dealing with this :) Nichica (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the question of notability by adding a paragraph "media", referencing to the different ways that Unleashed has been featured/noted. I have also added a link to Unleashed's facebook page, hoping that the >15k of likes demonstrate the wide-spread interest of people for this event. In case this is "not done", please let me know and I will remove this link. Nichica (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Nichica, Facebook likes are not WP:RELIABLE. Any social media account does not count as a decent source. Please remove this source from the article. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:ThePlatypusofDoom Thank you for your feedback; done. Nichica (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~DeleteDraft~~Delete (changed vote (again), see comment below) - Not because of notability, but conflict of interest. User:Nichica, you're welcome on Wikipedia, but if you work for Unleashed or High Gloss Productions, you must disclose that information. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure. If you create an article without disclosing that you work for the company, it's not only against Wikipedia rules, but against European law on covert advertising - even if you write in a non-promotional way.

If you do disclose, it is still not be allowed to write an article about the company you work for! You can only participate in discussions and make suggestions. So, unfortunately, this article must be deleted. Anything that might be seen as commercial advertising - even if it's true - is forbidden on Wikipedia. The article would need to be written by other independent Wikipedia editors, based on "secondary sources". That means references and citations from published, reliable media and press sources. There are processes whereby you could help with that. The Plain and simple conflict of interest guide offers some advice.

To establish notability, it's less important that the secondary source itself is notable, than that it's reliable. But the source must also say that there is something unique or notable about the event! For example, if the national newspaper De Volkskrant reports that Unleashed is a big party that happens on May 21 at The Box, it is not evidence of notability. But if the local Haarlems Dagblad writes that Unleashed is one of the top events of its kind in Europe, it may be. The German Fetish Ball article says that it's "the largest fetish weekend in Germany", according to the small but well-established Miami New Times newspaper. Without those types of references, there is no chance an article can be created. It doesn't help if you write in your own words about how amazing Unleashed is, because you are a primary source. In fact, that may hurt the chances, since it will be seen as self-promotion, which is not allowed.

The media sources you've provided are weak. The V Magazine article is more of a press release, written by High Gloss Productions, so it is not a secondary source. HGP is also a major advertiser on the Fetishistas site. So, neither are reliable sources, especially for notability. The report on BNN is helpful, but still probably not enough. If your main goal is to promote your event, you would do better to spend your time on media PR, than trying to make a Wikipedia article. But if you want to help educate people and contribute to Wikipedia, it would be appreciated! For example, you could improve the German Fetish Ball and related articles, as long as you don't write about Unleashed. That would help you and your company get a good reputation on Wikipedia, and might make other people more likely to help you in the future. Good luck! --IamNotU (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see that, after TheLongTone cleaned up the article a bit, Nichica reinserted puffery and unsubstantiated claims. I've taken the axe to the article to remove some of the worst of it, in order to try to better see if the article achieves notability. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up. OK, I've started to investigate. I have a feeling the article subject may actually be notable, but there's still so much junk in the article that it's hard to find the good stuff. Most of the references are useless in demonstrating notability, for at least one of the following reasons:
  - not independent (e.g., the production company or the event venue)
  - Unleashed isn't mentioned, or is mentioned in just a few words (e.g., the fire girls and many others)
  - site that is not reliable (Facebook being the most common example)

Indeed, many of these links have nothing at all to say about Unleashed, and it is inappropriate to even include them, as they're really just Spam links. This inculdes most, if not all, of the links in the Artists & Fashion section.

The "Media" section of the article has some references that mention Unleashed:

Good--An article in Fetishishtas includes in-depth coverage.
Bad--the reference to a party review in V Magazine appears to be the equivalent of a press release masquerading as an interview, with wording like "Our parties are fetish fantasy events..."
Unknown--some links don't work at all, such as this one.
Possible copyright violation--I was under the impression that it was inappropriate to refer to most Youtube or Vimeo videos, since they prove nothing unless they are from a userid that is verified by Youtube, and may also be a copyright violation. Thus, this vimeo link probably can't be used. However, perhaps a valid version can be found somewhere.

--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 09:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep [changed vote per indented comment following this paragraph]. I've spent a little more time, and haven't found anything more that would support notability. To build upon what others have said, I'm also concerned that the article's creator, and virtual sole editor, is a new, single purpose account. Note that what Wikipedia calls a conflict of interest must be declared. If someone, particularly someone who speaks Dutch, wants to userfy it, I wouldn't object. Clean up the article, remove 90% of the Spam-like links, find one or two more sources that really cover the event, and it could pass. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the improvements made by Nichica. I do not know Dutch, and Google translate isn't cooperating in translating some of the links (much less a video). However, I've puzzled out a few words, and I think the article has met the bar for notability. If any Dutch speakers want to correct me, feel free! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you all for your extensive responses, this is indeed the first page I am creating and can easily say I have learned a lot in a very brief amount of time.

I must note here that I am not working for Unleashed or High Gloss Productions - I'm a PhD student. It is, however, true that I am acquainted with the organizers as I have been attending their events for years now, along with various other (large) fetish events within and outside of the Netherlands and Germany. I have written this piece myself by using online sources and media, and from a fan's perspective. These two facts may indeed have colored the tone of the initial post. In my opinion, the event is definitely considered notable, especially with regard to the progress it’s made towards opening up these kinds of “taboo” events to a broader public, so I’m happy with the support and feedback that I’ve received from Wikipedia users in order to remove "promotional clutter".

Larry/Traveling_man, it was not my intention to re-insert puffery, I apologize if this came across as such. Really - I just figured I would spend some of my spare time now i'm in-between jobs to do something good for the scene, teaching myself how to use the wikipedia platform, etc. I have been (and have donated to) wikipedia for years and years, figured it was a good start to start giving back (without getting lost in the maze of improving other articles - in retrospect something i should have done first to properly learn how to do this...).

It has been picked up by notable media in Israel, though of course written in Hebrew. The online outlet Ynet of one of the largest Israeli newspapers Yedioth Ahronoth presents it local news via mYnet, and has published an extensive piece on Unleashed landing its events in Tel Aviv. Will add a section on this.

Unfortunately, there are only few “more notable” sources in existence, as you describe them. Despite the growing interest in what is in fact an international scene, it is not quickly and readily being picked up by “notable” or “mainstream” media, while the event itself is very well attended and rated highly among (its thousands of) visitors, not to mention the well-known artists from the scene who perform there. For this reason I also included the links on all artist/fashion designers, it was not intended as spam at all. Of course, these will now be removed.

In response to a few other comments: V magazine; I considered this notable as (the well-established_ V magazine is distributed world-wide and our event is interviewed alongside other very large, known international events, such as the Electric Daisy Carnival and HOLY SHIP!. Broken link to Marquis magazine; will fix. Vimeo copyright violation; the full link to the episode is available on the NPO website (where it was broadcasted), I will add this link instead. Just figured the cut version would prove more useful. of note: via NPO link you can only watch the between 10pm-6am due to the mature content.

Again I'd like to thank you for the in-depth responses, and helping me understand. I will round off the last edits today. Nichica (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Follow up - added another reference; five-page feature in one of longest running Dutch men magazines Panorama, from 2013. In order to add this, I've rewritten the media section to divide in national and international media features. Nichica (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's still questionable for the applicable notability and it's also a somewhat newly founded company so there's unlikely enough better. SwisterTwister talk 23:49, 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 // 21:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nichica, are you really sure you want to reveal your identity? There's no requirement to. It's up to you, and many people edit under their real identity. But most feel more comfortable using a pseudonym. Wikipedia is a somewhat different place than Facebook and Twitter. And once you start using your real identity, it's very difficult to go back, in the future. There's more information here: Wikipedia:Personal security practices. Your current username could also be used to identify you. If that's not what you want, let us know if you have questions about changing it.

If you have no financial relationship with Unleashed, that makes it much less of a problem for you to edit an article. I'd still be concerned that you might be too close to the organization, to be neutral and objective about it though. You've said things like "I feel that we have supplied the correct information", and "our event is interviewed alongside other [large events]". Combined with a rather advertising-like tone at first, and the fact that you haven't edited anything else on Wikipedia, it might give the impression that you're more interested in promotion than creating a factual article. I'm not saying that's true, just that it might be seen that way, and other people might object to your editing.

I've decided to change my vote above, from "delete" to "draft". That means the article would be removed from the main space, and put into the draft space or your user space to be worked on. I think the BNN show (nationally broadcast), and the Panorama and Marquis magazine articles, plus the other weaker sources, are probably enough to establish the required notability. But the current article still needs a lot of work. It would be better to take your time and work on it as a draft, get feedback and discuss it on the talk page there, until it's ready. Then, instead of creating the article yourself, you could request that it be reviewed and created by someone else. That will help avoid any questions about conflict of interest, notability, etc., that might lead to the article being put up for deletion again. Most of this is already well explained in Wikipedia:Your first article; following it could have avoided the hassle of having the article go through the deletion process, before it was ready. If you really are a bona fide volunteer Wikipedia editor, there are lots of people willing to help. But "Articles for deletion" isn't exactly a friendly and relaxed place to work on things.

If you, TheLongTone, Larry/Traveling_Man, and SwisterTwister agree with the suggestion, then we'd have a consensus. The procedure for moving it to a draft would depend on what you decide about your identity. -- IamNotU (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

movining it to a draft seems fine to me...my feeling was that this was probably worth an article, but the current effort did not pass muster.TheLongTone (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - since we haven't heard anything more, I'm changing back to "delete". Normally I'd say an article about a notable subject should be kept, or converted to a stub. But since this was newly created, the notability is borderline, the article is in rough shape, and there may be issues with promotion and WP:NPOV, I'm going to suggest dropping it for now, rather than create an abandoned draft. If someone wants to start over again in the future, they can - this discussion should provide some guidance about it. Can we note a consensus to delete, but no consensus on notability? -- IamNotU (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article needs such work that I feel like blowing it up is justified from that alone. However, in terms of notability, I'm not convinced that the entertainment project itself meets the bar in terms of sourcing. There's enough coverage to build a well-researched and cleanly written article on in the first place. The only two things that I've seen that look like reliable sources are the Ynet-related profile article and this glossy German language magazine's short piece. Everything else is more questionable, particularly citing what the project says about itself and what non-notable blogs have posted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not disagreeing, but just to point out, the coverage on BNN was fairly significant, being a nation-wide broadcast. Without that, I think it would be rather hopeless. And the Panorama magazine article is not unreasonable. On the other hand, the article on mynet (which is quite a different thing from ynet) is a bit suspect, given that the author admits to having been a personal friend of the event's organizers for twenty years... -- IamNotU (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – few references to high quality reliable sources, not enough to establish notability. SJK (talk) 14:25, 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. Nakon 02:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best available science[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY Adam9007 (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is pure, non-encyclopedic original research. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR apply here. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with the above arguments per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. Would Wikiversity be a possibility? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful phrase, used in legal cases dealing with scientific evidence. I'm not sure how it can be fixed.... Bearian (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best and restart if needed, the current contents are still overall questionable. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. czar 15:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maanzecorian[edit]

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

This character article currently only has primary sources, and there appears to be no room for improvement on establishing independent notability. TTN (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as this is unlikely actually independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. Cookie-cutter, unresearched nomination from an unreliable and disruptive editor who objects to the form of the article, not the appropriateness of coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: That's quite the wild accusation! Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with some reliable sources for Maanzecorian as you seem so convinced they exist? Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you familiarize yourself with the ArbCom case which placed a lengthy topic ban on the nom in this area, now unhappily expired, and check out their history, which includes, for example, a relatively recent effort to purge articles on George Orwell's fiction and characters, on the preposterous claim that it had not received significant critical attention? Your lack of knowledge does not justify attacking better-informed editors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete, no reliable sources from what I can tell. WP:NOTINHERITED, Maanzecorian needs to demonstrate notability independent of the D&D franchise. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per BOZ, above; possible search term.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:55, 30 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 // 21:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Definitely a useful redirect, but there does not seem to be enough real-world notability to justify a stand-alone article. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:39, 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 redirect to Peter Underwood. MBisanz ^talk 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gazetteer of British Ghosts (1971)[edit]

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

Article created by a family member of Peter Underwood, who seems to be using Wikipedia to promote Peter Underwood's Ghost books. No evidence this book is notable enough to have it's own entry. The sourcing is entirely inappropriate. For example reference 13 is just a list of books, some of which are self-published. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no indication of notability anywhere in the article, beyond the blatantly synthesized claim at the end that many (non-notable) books reference this one. I couldn't find any significant, third party coverage. Furthermore, the content of the article seems to be entirely sourced to the author's other books. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and ~~merge~~ redirect to Peter Underwood. The article is chock full of completely unsourced promotional puffery stated in Wikipedia's voice. Examples:

"[the book] conferred authority to Underwood (in terms of thoroughness of research), and a concomitant degree of seriousness and significance to his work"
"[the book] changed the field of paranormal literature, and became the basis for many subsequent works that modelled themselves on it"
"[the book] would help constitute a 'library of psychic knowledge"
"Other authors also recognise their debt to [the book]"

It might be OK if these were actual quotations from reliable secondary sources, but they appear to be all one editor's WP:OR opinions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Several paragraphs of commentary by Sherlockpsy have been moved from this page (where they seems inappropriate and distracting) to the article's talk page. The permalink for this move is here, in case the article is deleted). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept or Merge and ~~merge~~ redirect to Peter Underwood.:

the article was originally passed/accepted as a quality contribution with correct formatting/citation guidelines
re claim that "[the book] conferred authority to Underwood (in terms of thoroughness of research), and a concomitant degree of seriousness and significance to his work": - the claim on the inside jacket cover of the Gazetteer of British Ghosts is that it is the first comprehensive survey - the novelty of the use of the gazetteer form to systematise the accounts or so-called 'sightings' of the paranormal "Here for the firs time, catalogued and placed in alphabetical order, are well over two-hundred accounts of ghostly happenings"; Underwood set the trend for paranormal literature to come (much of the subsequent literature on folklore and the paranormal was modelled on this novel form; previously you had collections of ghost stories and legends; collected oral histories; Underwood collected and brought together his accounts from all over the country - hence the self-evident seriousness of the endeavour in the act of systematisation and comprehensiveness.
re claim that "[the book] changed the field of paranormal literature, and became the basis for many subsequent works that modelled themselves on it": it became the basis for many subsequent works that modelled themselves on it (Underwood personally recommended Haunted Britain (1973) by Hippisley Coxe, who includes Gazetteer of British Ghosts in his bibliography).Decades later, Haunted Britain (2001) by Richard Jones, follows the same model of the geographical survey established by the Gazetteer - as can be seen from its table of contents - covering reports and stories of ghosts and haunted places according to the same division of the country into regions (just as he did in his Haunted London (2009), which modelled itself on Underwood's own Haunted London (1973) - the first comprehensive survey of London). (see also response to first point above)
re claim that "[the book] would help constitute a 'library of psychic knowledge": The Gazetteer formed part of a series edited by Paul Tabori called 'Frontiers of the Unknown' - there are over half a dozen titles that Tabori commissioned that together constituted the so-called 'library of psychic knowledge' (again, that is a quasi-blurb from the back cover); but again, all this work is very much to do with the legacy of the work of Harry Price - who's archive currently exists at Senate House in London (paranormal historian Paul Adams was bequeathed Peter Underwood's archives - Underwood corresponded with Price and produced his Ghosts of Borley (co-written with Tabori) on the back of his own investigative work and through a full internalisation/comprehension of the two books Price produced on Borley)
re claim that the book lacks notoriety (see response to above claim): I have found a link to a review from TIME MAGAZINE : http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909941,00.html and an Academic Journal - http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0015587X.1971.9716735 ; In an interview with the BBC, Underwood elaborated upon the account he gave of the ghost associated with Littlecote House; BBC. "Peter Underwood Ghosthunter at Large". Retrieved 2016-05-04; http://www.bbc.co.uk/wiltshire/content/articles/2005/10/26/ghosthunter_261005_feature.shtml ; Underwood subsequently took part in a BBC 1975 documentary The Ghost Hunters, where he discussed Borley - which he covered in the Gazetteer (pp.30-8) ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IcMi0gppVc - NB :this link would never be intended for use as a citation)
re claim that sources need to be found on Jstor etc (see response to above claim - sources have been found that can be located on Jstor: http://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22peter+underwood%22+gazetteer&acc=off&wc=on&fc=off&group=none
re claim that "Other authors also recognise their debt to [the book]" There are ten instances of citation of the Gazetteer in The Penguin Book of Ghosts: Haunted England by by Jacqueline Simpson, Jennifer Westwood which is not immediately apparent because the republished title - The A-Z of British Ghosts - is the title that is cited - but it is the same edition: (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Penguin-Book-Ghosts-Haunted-England-Jacqueline-Simpson/dp/184614101X ) See also the liner notes of music artist Llewellyn (1998), who's album Ghosts (New World Music (new edition released in 2003 by Paradise Music)), is directly indebted to the Gazetteer of British Ghosts by Peter Underwood; see also Phil Rickman's The Smile of a Ghost (2005, Macmillan), which is directly indebted to Underwood's account of Ludlow (Gazetteer of British Ghosts. pp. 156–158)- mentions Underwood within the novel by name by a character - as well as being used as an epigraph, and citation in the bibliography.Sherlockpsy (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherlockpsy (talk • contribs) 08:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:02, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adia Victoria[edit]

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

My searches found some other links especially at News but still nothing convincing to immensely improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The searches the nominator did must not have included HighBeam, which is a link you can click at the top of the page where it reads "Find sources." In HighBeam, there is an article from The Fader about her [14], she is mentioned in the Pittsburgh City Paper: [15], and she has a Rolling Stone article: [16]. These are enough to assert notability without even going into the minor sources and press releases. I will also clean up the article later and add sources as appropriate. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the article, added references, etc. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Topic notability is not based upon whether or not articles are improved; see WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Village Voice
American Songwriter
American Songwriter
Phoenix New Times
Citizen Times
The Fader (subscription required)
American Songwriter
Citizen Times (short article)
Nashville Scene (short article)

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG criteria. Thanks for your work @Megalibrarygirl: and @Northamerica1000:. Hmlarson (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sources, adequate indicia of notability. Coverage by NPR for someone in alternative music is particularly worth paying attention to. Montanabw ^(talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nakon 02:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Carlsson[edit]

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

VA from Germany who had some roles in German and Swedish (??) language translations of anime and cartoons, but I don't see much coverage on the person in news or stuff that would demonstrate notability. She has a lead role in Kim Possible but how were the other shows? The synchronkartei database shows a bunch of them [17] but is that an IMDb-like user generated database? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing suggesting the needed notability improvements, current information is not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Searching for sources reveals little in English, German, or Swedish (in fact, most of the hits I found are flase positives). However, being the lead in a foreign dub of Kim Possible might be enough to establish notability. The database mentioned above says "staff login" which I think means it's not user-editable and can only be edited by website staff, and unlike ANN's encyclopedia, it appears that each role requires some source (usually a show's end credits), so it's possible that the source is reliable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro section see second-to-last paragraph says the webmaster is controlling the information in its entirety, listens with his own ears, checks closing credits, and reads newspaper announcements. There are light bulb icons on each entry so that people can send a request to edit an entry but he ultimately decides if it is valid or not. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German Wikipedia references look promising. At least they have her agency profiles and resume: [18] [19], although still primary sourced. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Again, needs more sourcing, but let's not have an anti-children's programming attitude here. Dig a little and see what's out there. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I would say keep for now, more of a search needs to be done. I say this as I am seeing major roles which would make her pass WP:ENT #1, this shouldn't give a free pass though if nothing is found to back up some of the roles stated in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is strange. she has obviously had major roles. sources can probably be found by interested parties. we dont delete on article quality, size, etc.BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has had some prominent roles and passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 22:14, 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. MBisanz ^talk 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jupally Satyanarayana Rao[edit]

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

I had originally nominated this for BLPPROD: the tag was quite correctly removed, because there was an external link that is sufficient to make it ineligible. Nonetheless, I do not believe this person meets our notability guidelines. He is a municipal corporator (essentially a city council member), and therefore does not meet WP:NPOL; and there is absolutely no substantive coverage of him in any sources that would count towards WP:GNG. All of the coverage he has received is in the form of list entries, which is not sufficient. Therefore, delete Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, Hyderabad is a large and prominent enough city that its city councillors/corporators would clear the bar under WP:NPOL #3 if they were properly sourced as such — but NPOL #3 does not confer an automatic presumption of notability on a person whose article isn't adequately sourced. That is, it's not a level of office at which a person automatically gets to have an article on here just because they exist — it's a level of office where inclusion is conditional on the volume of reliable source coverage that can actually be shown to get them over the inclusion bar. So if the coverage just isn't there, then a Wikipedia article doesn't get to be there either. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 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 Redirect to List of fungal orders per WP:SNOW. Though this AfD has run for a short time, there seems to be little disagreement, and WP:D-R are easily reversed. (non-admin closure) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fungi genus list[edit]

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

Indiscriminate, unreferenced and badly formatted list. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 18:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~fungus~~ List of fungal orders. Such lists at most belong within their parent taxonomic level, in this case the family level or to higher levels if not classified to order or family such as Agaricomycetes for an example. A blanket list of all genera within a kingdom does not meet standalone notability requirements we warrant to actual taxonomic groups such as genera in a family. The reason for the redirect is that if someone is really interested in a group of genera without going straight to an order, class, etc. page, they're going to start at the kingdom level (fungi) and work their way down the nomenclature. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like Mark viking's redirect below better (missed that link in my quick skim). I don't have any reservations about deleting either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fungal orders. List-class articles like this need to have wiki links to respective articles, referencing and ideally, taxonomic organization. As a list of alphabetized words, this article has little to offer. By contrast List of fungal orders has all three, including a nice hierarchy by phylum and class, and is a useful resource for those trying to understand or search fungal taxonomy. I agree with Kingofaces43 that a redirect to a better article best serves our readers. But I wouldn't count it a great loss if this was simply deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of fungal orders. As the previous commenters have mentionned, that article is very beautifully organised and linked. Why keep an inferior partial duplicate? Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:38, 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. Nakon 02:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SciFi20[edit]

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

Non-notable role-playing game. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see a few entries in the usual databases, such as Boardgamegeek.com, but that's not enough to establish notability. As far as I can tell, there are no reviews in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 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. Nakon 02:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up your mouse, Obama[edit]

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

This was turned down for A7 in 2014, on the basis of having enough sources to indicate some significance. What it does not have is any lasting significance, and there not any notability either as an internet meme or as a political comment. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all convincing for its own notable article, could be moved to a list at best, but there's nothing else to suggest article improvements. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Possibly Merge to Egyptian presidential election, 2014 in one of the sections -- and remove the quote template and just have the quote as part of the paragraph. Fairly unnotable on its own outside of the election. Probably best fit for websites like "KnowYourMeme". As it happens, it is there already. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article. It lacks any significance outside of the elections. It is more appropriate for Meme sites on the Internet. May be referenced/merged into another relevant article: Egyptian presidential election, 2014. On its own it lacks any worthiness.--Arquenevis (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - meme that went nowhere fast. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Neil[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability, it appears that he is only notable at the moment for his prison stint, which to my mind is a case of BLP1E Gbawden (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC as well as WP:CRIME. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing suggesting at least the basic independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've had clients with DUIs and shoplifting charges who served more time than this two bit criminal. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. No reason to give him fame. Legacypac (talk) 02:46, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 10:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Makishima[edit]

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

VA's main roles are Sayuri in Tokimeki Memorial Only Love, supporting in Sentimental Graffiti/Journey, Growlanswer IV. She voices Kaguya and Nuwa in Warriors Orochi. Not much for independent notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since she doesn't appear to be notable over at wiki Japan (also tagged). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the needed notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 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 21:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnakar D. Bala[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the above. I found only a handful of sources even mentioning the subject, most of which were primary sources, the rest of which were passing mentions. ~ Erick Shepherd • (Talk) • 14:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still nothing suggesting applicably better for the notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 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 21:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primal sympathy[edit]

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

Unreferenced opinion piece of Ode: Intimations of Immortality. This does not meet WP:GNG and is a violation of WP:OR. At most this may warrant a mention in the Ode: Intimations of Immortality article if it can be properly referenced and supported. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced WP:OR (pure essay). If there had been any citations there might have been the possibility of merging with Ode: Intimations of Immortality, but as it stands there's nothing to merge. Suggest straightforward delete, with no objections to anyone working on the Ode article if they have sources. The Ode article in fact mentions and cites sympathy already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An original essay without a source in sight. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an essay, not an article. I'm not sure that it could be redirected anywhere, but ping me if you can think of something. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently convincing for keeping as its actual own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:51, 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. Nakon 02:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Action Film[edit]

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

I am very unconvinced that this is a term in common use; article has no references to persuade me otherwise. TheLongTone (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have never heard about it, and a search for books sources confirms that it is not a term used in the indexed literature. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 17:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be original research, a topic that might be turned into an essay that could be of interest to a film journal, but has none of the indicia of notability required for a Wikipedia article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A simple case. Pragmatically something no one's heard of, no sources, article's a stub of a stub plus the lack of sources to be found on search engines. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google shows no coverage in reliable sources; at the very least, one would expect to see this discussed in trade magazines or academic journals, which are generally well-indexed. The article has no citations and consists only of original research. With only 16 Google hits, it's likely that the article creator made up the term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting at least the basic improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:N, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:53, 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 keep. It has been demonstrated that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Also of note is that the article has been significantly copy edited after the nomination here to address concerns with promotional tone. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xactly Corp[edit]

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

extremely borderline notability relying entirely on announcements of minorawards and similar notices; very highly promotional,and the promotionalism has been restored after being removed. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 10:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for any solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm familiar with Xactly, and their software/service is a somewhat unique product in the way it allows companies to outsource elaborate sales compensation. I suspect there may be meaningful secondary sources out there that would actually discuss this fact and the company in an NPOV way. The article as it stands is totally promotional and unencyclopedic, however. I'd lean toward stubbifying it and hunting for better sources, but that of course leaves the door open for people to keep using it as a sales pitch. Pinball22 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, Xactly is a publicly traded company on the NYSE. Sections may need reworked to remove marketing speak.--Supiter5 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haave youany evidence they're on the main exchange? The subsidiary ones do not imply notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Gage, Deborah (2014-10-24). "Big-Data Company Shines a Light on the Dark World of Women's Pay". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  That women tend to make less money than men is widely known, although it can still be startling to discover that your company has been participating in this trend.
  That is what happened at venture-backed Xactly Corp., whose software helps corporate customers calculate how much they should pay their salespeople by gathering and analyzing more than 1 billion data points each month.
  The data sit in the cloud, and when all of it is aggregated and anonymized, customers can compare themselves to each other and to industry benchmarks that Xactly has been creating. (Customers can choose to keep their data out of the pool, but more than 90% participate, according to founder and Chief Executive Christopher Cabrera).
  Over the years, Xactly has collected a lot of data. The company, which is based in San Jose, Calif., was started in 2005 and says it now calculates pay for more than 700 customers, including Hyatt Hotels, drawing data from a variety of sources.
2. Conrad, Katherine (2007-06-05). "Xactly finds right spot in downtown San Jose". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Christopher Cabrera, who founded Xactly in 2005 with Satish Palvai, said his staff of just under 100 is bursting at the seams in its current 11,000-square-foot location on Race Street. So the 24,000-square-foot, two-story Metropole - most recently the headquarters for the former Knight Ridder Digital - will provide a lot more breathing room.
  "We're a 2 1/2-year-old company and we're growing like crazy," Cabrera said.
  Xactly is a software-as-a-service firm that enables companies that don't want to invest in expensive hardware and software to automate their incentive sales compensation programs. Xactly's customers, which include Salesforce.com, have sales teams as small as 10 and as large as 1,000.
  ...
  Perhaps the furniture is another sign of what's to come for Xactly, which in April received a $15 million investment led by Alloy Ventures, and to date has raised $27 million.
3. Russell, Frank Michael (2010-08-03). "Xactly: San Jose startup wins $12M from Bridgescale, Salesforce, others". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Xactly, the San Jose provider of online sales performance management technology, has received $12 million in venture financing in a round led by Menlo Park-based Bridgescale Partners.
  The financing includes an investment from Salesforce.com, the San Francisco provider of online customer relationship management technology, and existing investors Alloy Ventures, Bay Partners, Cheyenne Partners, Glynn Capital Management, Outlook Ventures and Rembrandt Ventures.
  Xactly's software-as-a-service customers include American Express, Motorola, Salesforce.com and Xerox.
4. Nakaso, Dan (2014-03-28). "Q&A: Xactly founder Christopher W. Cabrera, on keeping employees happy". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  In its nine-year existence, Xactly has grown from three employees to more than 300, and their ongoing praise for the company has earned Xactly honors as a great place to work from The Wall Street Journal, Forbes and the Bay Area News Group.
  Christopher W. Cabrera, Xactly's homegrown founder, president and CEO, was raised by a San Jose "serial entrepreneur" whose innovations ended up in everything from microwaves to NASA's lunar rover. While Cabrera learned valuable lessons about entrepreneurship from his late father, Eduardo, a Colombian immigrant, the younger Cabrera's soul beats with the DNA of a natural-born salesman.
  Xactly sells cloud-based management systems that instantly -- and more efficiently and cost-effectively, Cabrera says -- allow both managers and sales people to track critical issues such as bonuses and what products offer the most incentives for sales people. Xactly has more than 600 clients -- many with offices around the world -- including LinkedIn, Salesforce.com, Twitter, Motorola, Specialized Bicycles and Hyatt Hotels and Resorts. Xactly's customers use its services in multiple languages and 90 currencies.
5. Bryant, Adam (2016-01-09). "Christopher Cabrera of Xactly: Learning to Stay Above the Drama". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The entire article is an interview, so it cannot be used to establish notability. However, I am including this here because it is worth noting that the company's CEO received an article-length interview in The New York Times.
6. Segall, Eli (2012-08-10). "Xactly CEO Chris Cabrera looks to $80M-$100M IPO in 2013". Silicon Valley Business Journal. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Cabrera co-founded the company in 2005 and he said it’s growing 40 percent per year. He said the firm is, by design, not profitable yet, since it’s “plowing back all the profits into growing the business.”
  But this would change in time for the stock offering, said Cabrera, who was interviewed after appearing on a panel for the Business Journal’s second annual Small Business Summit at the Hilton San Jose. A transcript of the panel discussion will appear in the Business Journal online and in print on May 4.
  “We’ll be profitable for the IPO,” he said.
  The company has raised $72 million in funding since its inception, though it has spent roughly $35 million of that on its products. Its investors include Alloy Ventures and Bay Partners.
7. Schubarth, Cromwell (2015-05-19). "Xactly hopes to raise $75M in IPO". Silicon Valley Business Journal. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  Xactly's software and services help companies manage their sales force and compensation. Its competitors include Callidus Software, Cognos (a division of IBM) and Oracle.
  Xactly's revenue jumped 68 percent to about $61 million in the three years that ended on Jan. 31. Its net loss nearly doubled in that time to $18.5 million.
  The company has raised more than $80 million in funding. Its biggest investors are Rembrandt Venture Partners (15.2 percent stake), Bay Partners (11.7 percent), Alloy Ventures (11.5 percent), Key Venture Partners (11.2 percent), Bridgescale Partners (9.4 percent) and Outlook Ventures (8.4 percent).
8. Schubarth, Cromwell (2015-06-25). "Xactly raises $56M in IPO that falls short of target range". Silicon Valley Business Journal. Retrieved 2016-05-01.
  The article notes:
  
  CEO Chris Cabrera sounded upbeat on Friday despite the fact that his cloud-based compensation software company, Xactly, fell well short of its IPO targets in an offering that raised about $56 million.
  ...
  San Jose-based Xactly sold about 7 million shares for $8 each. The stock was expected to sell for between $10 and $12.
  ...
  Xactly's software and services help companies manage their sales force and compensation. Its competitors include Callidus Software, Cognos (a division of IBM) and Oracle, all public companies.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xactly Corp to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, sorry DGG I hate to strongly disagree with you, but I think this nomination may be an error, per WP:LISTED this is considered notable. I remember speaking with you before regarding what major exchanges are considered to have inherent notability. I believe the guidelines allows flexibility to include the top 20 major exchanges. I remember you considered companies listed on the NYSE which is stricter than my interpretations of WP:CORP and LISTED, however this company is listed on the NYSE. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition is on the primary basis of promotionalism, and the NYSE information depends on whether they are actually on the main board, not the supplemental ones. Given the size of the company , I doubt it very much. A further indication of promotionalism is that the information in the article is deceptive: the "best places to work award" is actually a "best small workplace" award. That "small" makes quite a difference in significance. I notice the information that is in the article DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotionalism is of course an issue than needs to be corrected, however I believe a company cannot be small and listed on the NYSE. I always believe best places to work is not something that should be included on Wikipedia as many companies with some form of market presence has potential to be ranked on a "best places to work". Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per notability and reliable sources above shown above. These need to be properly utilissed in the article, which does currently read like a marketing bochure and needs fixing but that is not grounds for deletion outright. Eno Lirpa (talk) 15:04, 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 delete. The consensus is that at the moment, he des not meet the notability criteria. If he is successful in running for a Senate seat, his notability at that time can be taken into consideration for re-creating the article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Giordano[edit]

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

Lacks notablity. Lacks citations for almost everything stated in the article Underdog456 (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note As per WP:BEFORE, can you please post in this discussion a discription of the minimum search you preformed (Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects, etc.) prior to this articles nomination for deletion and post same here in a note? Thanks.Picomtn (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/#q=al+giordano If you search google, there's an unverified Twitter, his own website, and references to an Al Giordano who was fired from Wounded Warrior embezzling money, but there's no reason to think it's the same person. Google scholar has nothing on him. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=al+giordano&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C14&as_sdtp= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog456 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC) As for references, there is one article by him, and one article that briefly mentions him. If we strip the article down to what we have sources for, we have: "In September 2007, Giordano wrote an article in the Boston Phoenix describing how Barack Obama would overtake then frontrunner Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.[1] Vanity Fair commented that "[t]he first to grasp the portent of what was taking shape was the prophet of the Obama paradigm shift, the journalist/activist/online editor/blogger Al Giordano, who, as a student of the teachings and tactics of community organizer Saul Alinsky (whose Rules for Radicals is the guerrilla guide for domestic insurgents), divined the advantage that Obama’s small-donor base gave him against old-school juggernauts."[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog456 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for better applicable notability improvements such as for WP:CREATIVE, not yet convincing of keeping if this can't be amply improved. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Hi @SwisterTwister: (cc @Amatulic: @Bearcat:) I've changed this article to a stub, rewritten the lead and added references (and some minor cleanup) so that it now meets WP:Basic, but it does need some more work. However, due to the serious allegations made against the person, and as they relate to BLP, I'm not sure how to proceed and could use some guidance. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hi @SwisterTwister: (cc @Amatulic: @Bearcat:) I just undid all my edits for this article due to my confusing two different people with the same name. Which brings up the question, the person with this articles same name that I wrote about and referenced meets WP:Basic, but, if this person doesn't, can this article just be changed to reflect the person I researched? Or should a new article be written? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found references to him with narco news, but not in reliable sources (just fringy web pages). Like many journalists, he writes about topics, but no one writes about him. I don't know what that means about GNG policies, but he does not currently meet the criteria. LaMona (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The site may be notable, but he does not inherit notability because of that. The biography section is completely unsourced, and using articles the subject has written as the only sources in the article doesn't pass RS. MSJapan (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above notability concerns. That being said, he is as of today running for a Vermont Senate seat, so this might change back in the near-enough future. Buggie111 (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as there's nothing suggesting keeping this open longer (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MTrain Tour[edit]

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

Just another tour; possibly redirect or merge to artist. TheLongTone (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. No prejudice against merging to the artist's main article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Billboard
The Sun Chronicle
MTV (shorter article, scroll downward to view all)
CBS News (short article)
The Indianapolis Star (short article)
Broadway World (3 ¶)

Keep – For the reasons stated above. The sources confirm the subject's notability and fulfills WP:NTOUR. "Just another tour" is not a strong enough reason to nominate an article for deletion in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per NorthAmerica and Aoba47. FiendYT ★ 01:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article subject meets WP:GNG by the significant coverage over numerous reliable sources such as: [20], [21], [22], [23], MTV, and [24] Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 01:41, 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. Nakon 02:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mace[edit]

(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) 11:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. — Music1201 ^talk 23:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 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 delete. Sandstein 19:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manhunt International 2014[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Manhunt International 2013 which is a redirect to this page.

Recreation of an article (albeit not identical) earlier removed through a regular AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhunt International 2014 (2nd nomination) ("07:46, 14 February 2015 Missvain (talk | contribs) deleted page Manhunt International 2014 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manhunt International 2014 (2nd nomination))") It should have been deleted, but according to the history that never happened (or something strange has happened.) The pageant itself has no sources (all sources given are about the contestants and not one of them is conform WP:RS). On the talkpage there is an accusation that the result was a fake... The Banner talk 13:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the 4th go at this! The 2nd nomination closed delete (I agree it looks like it was not deleted). The third was withdrawn in favor of a G4 which was declined. The page used to be Manhunt International 2013 which should also have been deleted as dependent on this page. Legacypac (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is something very strange about this. The article on Manhunt International says "Not held ... 2013-2015" and the pics in the references all seem to be copyright 2011. In any case, none of the references actually verify the results, they're only pictures of the (putative) entrants. Who knows if this really happened, or, if it did, if these were the results? ubiquity (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the main article on Manhunt International only has a single reference, only stating who won in 2001. I'm wondering if maybe the entire contest, and all of its nine (mostly unreferenced) pages, should be removed. ubiquity (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, Legacypac, and Ubiquity. Should have been deleted after 2nd Afd nomination.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the main Manhunt International and the comments on the talk page this appears to be a hoax. Delete and SALT it. Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a NAC on technical ground (Hopefully uncomtroversal) because the closer and page mover missed that a move from Manhunt International 2014 to Manhunt International 2013 does not resolve the AfD. The 2013 page is also up for nomination in this AfD. Both titles appear to be hoaxes. Needs an Admin Reclose to delete the 2013 page too. Legacypac (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the page was moved so just closed and hadn't thought nothing of it (I never gave it a thought to look at the other article it was moved too), Legacypac I would've happily reverted if you had asked :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was confident you would not mind. It was headed to Deletion Review and the 2013 page was just nominated for deletion, so better to quickly reopen and head off wasting time on the other processes. Legacypac (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :), Hang on why ? ..... I had stated "Moved by James" so the "DRVer" could've just asked for it to be reopened ?, Ah well thanks for reverting anyway and I agree reopening is a hell of a lot better than DRV! :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to start a DR, but of course I asked you what was going on first. By then the situation was already getting corrected. I don't know if others were thinking about DR. ubiquity (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a quick search revealed only a few YouTube videos, no reliable independent coverage which would prove that this article meets GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 07:22, 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 Speedy Deleted (G4) by TomStar81. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Untouchable Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just another tour, WP:TOOSOON to tell whether actually notable. Wikipedia is not a listings magazine, TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an article on this topic was deleted after an AfD very recently...so this is a clear candidate for a Speedy deleteTheLongTone (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, so I nominated this article for speedy deletion under CSD G4. Interlude 65 (Push to talk) 18:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:22, 8 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) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hunt of a Lifetime[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation, Google search produces no good reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is unreliable about this Salon article? General Ization ^Talk 16:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Or this one, published in Sun Valley magazine? General Ization ^Talk 16:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another here, at Lancaster Online. I'm not sure what kind of search you conducted, but you seem to have missed some reliable sources. General Ization ^Talk 16:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep Article in Field and Stream, February 2000. I think the claim that the organization is non-notable is easily disproven. General Ization ^Talk 16:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what aspect of GNG you feel is not fulfilled by the sources above. The mentions of the subject are non-trivial, and appear in reliable, independent sources. According to the 2015 Sun Valley article, the organization "has established organizations in all 50 states, four Canadian provinces, Africa and New Zealand." Personally, I find the concept a bit bizarre (fulfilling a dying child's wish to kill animals), and the organization seems to have been somewhat less than forthcoming in terms of its public reporting as a charity, but we are to be objective in our application of the notability guidelines. General Ization ^Talk 17:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another hit, this one a 2004 article by Lew Freedman for the Chicago Tribune. General Ization ^Talk 18:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Unless you are willing and able to answer the questions above, I would ask you to withdraw this AfD as speedy keep (reason #1), on the basis that the premise under which it was opened has now been determined to be false. There's no need to leave the AfD to work its way through the bureaucracy if the subject of the article can't be shown to be non-notable. General Ization ^Talk 21:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on holiday, so can only give a quick response. 6 sources is not enough to definitely pass WP:GNG, and so I believe this discussion should continue. And currently only 1 other person actually agrees with you, which isn't a clear consensus to keep. Also, why did you feel the need to ping me 3 times about it, General Ization? Joseph2302 (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I literally pinged you only once (as you can see); I presume you were pinged for each of the multiple edits I made to my comments above, the last two of which moved my comments (including the {{ping}} template) to a different line on the page. The number of "keeps" matters not if the asserted basis for the AfD is invalid. Even so, we'll let it run its course. Enjoy your holiday. General Ization ^Talk 22:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out, however, that GNG is pretty clear on this point: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." I stopped only to avoid being tedious; there are many other published sources concerning this organization, if only one takes the time to look. General Ization ^Talk 22:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having done some more research, the organization itself is notable, so rather it is the article that needs more work done on it to bring it up-to standard. So I vote against deletion.--Aspro (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not finding any of this solidly convincing for the applicable notability and I have not noticed anything else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why you ~~don't~~ think that the sources listed above and in the article are insufficient? You may well be right, but without addressing that issue your comment here is of no use in advancing this discussion towards consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify, as your question contains what I think is a double-negative. Were you asking SwisterTwister why they thought the sources were insufficient (i.e., didn't think they were sufficient), or why I think they are sufficient? General Ization ^Talk 20:35, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I must have changed my mind about wording half way through adding my comment and not gone back to correct things. I meant this as a question to SwisterTwister about why he thinks the sources are insufficient. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That any one would create an organisation to help people go out and kill something as a parting major act in life makes it fascinating for me and also hence a fundamentally notable comment on the human race and definitely deserves recording. Aoziwe (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Many of these sources were easily found using the Find sources template atop this nomination. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Salon
Lancaster Online
ABC News
Lancaster Online
The Victoria Advocate (via Associated Press)
Herald Journal
Field & Stream
The Argus-Press
SunValley magazine
Bangor Daily News (continued on p. B5, scroll right)
WAGM Television

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 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 21:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis (Shahrul Halim Heptalogy)[edit]

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

No reason to believe that this book is in any way notable. Unreferenced article which is virtually all (turgid) plot summary TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Article itself is no worse than many and better than many. Needs a lot of work, difficult to read, and some poor grammar and idiom. If reliable secondary sources do not turn up then relist some time later. Not surprising that there are no or very few references if it was only published in 2016 . . . (If we deleted every publication that was not a best seller day one there would be very few books, very few pop groups, horse jockeys, records, etc. in wikipedia . . .) Aoziwe (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. And Wikipedia would be a better place.... See WP:TOOSOON. And, regarding to e quality of the article, WP:DYNAMITE. The only convincing argument for keeping this is that it might save somebody the pain of reading such wogeous tosh.TheLongTone (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmh ! I suspect we might actually be in furious agreement ! My point was there is a defacto standard even if we do not like it or it has consequences - better for a guilty man to a go free than to hang an innocent one ? Cheers Aoziwe (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: There is a de facto standard and that is WP:NBOOK. How you !vote Keep and say "there are no or very few references" is a little odd. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. It does not currently meet the standard, but it is a new article about a new subject. I think it should be given time. I did say above 'for now . . . relist later'. I do not think WP:TOOSOON applies either. It is a published book with a non trivial article. I agree the article is certainly (!) not the best one ever written, but this applies to many. I will not complain if it goes, but I think we should be encouraging people who are prepared to put in the effort someone obviously has on this one, it is not just a couple of glib lines like some, to put in their effort in a better way rather than just clobber their work. Aoziwe (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability guideline for books applies, but I have found no sources that suggest this work is notable. Author currently has no individual article. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBOOK. There are so few result results and not a single mention in any reliable source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the image of the cover might be a copyright violation. Can someone confirm and tag it? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:BOOK or WP:GNG, have been unable to find any useable sources. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but at the moment appears to be a case of WP:PROMO. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as apparently published this year, nothing else convincing for its own notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 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. Nakon 02:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko Markkula[edit]

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

The subject fails to meet both general notability criteria and chess players' ones (Grandmaster or national champion). Sophia91 (talk) 16:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches simply found a few links, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep First, he is not a chess player, he was with FIDE, and decided who the grandmasters were. I found two sources:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/mikko-markkula-1947-2012
https://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/5973-mikko-markkula-rip.html

ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 19:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These links are already in the article. WP:GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.": to me, this is not the case of the subject; e.g. FIDE was his employer. Sophia91 (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 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. czar 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth México 2016[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, no sources conform WP:RS The Banner talk 19:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete it's WP:TOOSOON, but just barely Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obviously too soon, should not be started so soon if there's not a large amount of information. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Move to Draft WP:TOOSOON Eno Lirpa (talk) 14:46, 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 delete. czar 14:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meka Niyi Olowola[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources, only extremely brief mentions e.g. [25] [26]. This is a long way from what is required to satisfy WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually suggests the necessary solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is lacking any allegation of notability. I don't see what he's done has had any effect. He seems to be a nice person and a true advocate; however, there is not even a suggestion of any notable accomplishments. I'd change my mind if someone would rescue this c.v. from probable deletion. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 27 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} 13:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:29, 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 keep. Nakon 02:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biscayne Southern College[edit]

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

Unreferenced, biased, and not well-written stub. Its maintenance tags have been removed at least once and its External Links section says it all. Fritzmann2002 13:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Ordinarily a 90-year-old degree-granting college would be a slam dunk for notability, assuming we can verify the claims in the article. So far, the usual online searches haven't turned up much for me. I've found one 1974 newspaper article reporting on this school buying out another business college to create a third branch location, along with a number of obituaries for people who attended this school. So we can conclude, at least, that it was a real school. It would certainly be nice to find more. One of the currently cited sources is an apparent copy of a 2005 Associated Press article, and if this could be confirmed as real, it would pretty much settle the notability question, but the cited website is questionable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arxiloxos, that alleged 2005 AP article does seem sketchy. The image "bsc.jpg" is actually from Antioch College, and no business college would have ever had a physical plant like that on its own. Also I can't find any other AP articles under the byline "Mark Syczmanski". I am going to remove the current article text about social activism in the 1960s. The college definitely existed, but that "article" sounds like someone was having fun.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-granting institution per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It definitely needs work, but it is most likely notable. For most of its life it was probably only a business college, but those were usually notable in their day (as writing Lincoln Business College awhile back taught me). Frankly, the amount of online newspaper archives available for this location (North Carolina) appear to be really poor, I really hope someone there can help with archive access.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I nearly closed it myself, this is enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dual-phase evolution[edit]

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

Based on the work of a single author (also the creator of this article). —Ruud 14:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's sources from three different sets of authors, and I believe it passes WP:GNG. Note also that it would have been nice/polite for the AfD nominator to have informed me of this AfD, as I accepted the article at AfC. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: The references relevant to the article are those who have "Green, David G." as one of the authors. Those papers have not received a significant number of citations. The independent references by e.g. Paul Erdős and James R. Goodman do not speak about "dual-phase evolution" at all, they are merely used to support tangential statements. Adding such off-topic references is a common trick to make the article seem more notable than it is and pass a superficial check at AfC. —Ruud 10:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main author is apparently working on this whatever-it-is since 1982 (last reference 9 at the monent), therefore Paul Erdős had no chance to review it in a book published 1960. Dggreen does not hide the WP:COI, but might be unsuited to present the topic in an encyclopedic way. With my long forgotten (but fondly remembered) chordal graphs, petri nets, and FSC-0093: keep, add {{multiple issues}}. –Be..anyone 💩 07:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That someone has been working on this topic for 34 years does not make it notable. We need independent work to refer to it to establish that. I do not see any evidence of such independent descriptions of this work existing. (Aside from the notability issue, the article seems fine, it would not be appropriate to WP:TAGBOMB it.) —Ruud 07:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My usual standard for academic topics such as this is pretty low (based on WP:GNG): I want to see significant research on the topic performed by multiple independent groups. In this case Google Scholar finds quite a few papers with this topic (or its abbreviation) in their title, but they seem to be all from the same people. So this looks like something that just hasn't gained any traction outside of the research group where it originated. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— Green (2014) 3 cites, 2 of which are self-cited. Green (2011) 22 cites, 4 of which are self-cited. Agree with @David Eppstein: just not enough traction yet. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article itself looks okay. Yes a narrow field of personal stakeholders, but it has been published by a range of notable institutional stakeholders with peer review papers it seems, which is not a very low bar to get over. So while not winning the world cup it does stand on its own two feet. Aoziwe (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion this article satisfy notability guidance criteria. It is true that it coves a specialized subject, which has been extensively studied by the main author. However, there are other researches who were focused on, and the topic of dual-phase evolution is referenced in passing in a number of publications, including few textbooks. --Dcirovic (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcirovic: Could you name those researchers, publications and textbooks? —Ruud 07:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruud Koot:

some of the researches who were focused on the topic,^[1]^[2]^[3]
this topic is referenced in passing in a number of publications,^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10] including few textbooks.^[11]^[12]

References

^ Greg Paperin; Suzanne Sadedin (2009). "A Dual Phase Evolution Model of Adaptive Radiation in Landscapes". Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence. Funchal - Madeira, Portugal: 135–143. ISBN 9789896740146.
^ James M. Whitacre (2009). "Evidence of coevolution in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms" (PDF). WorldComp. Las Vegas, NV, USA. arXiv:0907.0329.
^ I. Steinbach; F. Pezzolla; B. Nestler; M. Seeßelberg; R. Prieler; G.J. Schmitz; J.L.L. Rezende (1 July 1996). "A phase field concept for multiphase systems". Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 94 (3): 135–147. Bibcode:1996PhyD...94..135S. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(95)00298-7.
^ Nadav Kashtan; Elad Noor; Uri Alon (2007). "Varying environments can speed up evolution" (PDF). PNAS. 104 (34): 13711–13716. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10413711K. doi:10.1073/pnas.0611630104. PMC 1948871. PMID 17698964.
^ Georgios Chintzoglou; Jie Zhang (2013). "Reconstructing the subsurface three-dimensional magnetic structure of a solar active region using SDO/HMI observations". The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 764 (1): L3. arXiv:1301.4651. Bibcode:2013ApJ...764L...3C. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/764/1/L3.
^ Q.J. Zhao; Z.M. Wen (2012). "Integrative networks of the complex social-ecological systems". Procedia Environmental Sciences. 13: 1383–1394. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.131.
^ Kelly M Simpson; Kristie Porter; Eleanor S McConnell; Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Kathryn A Daily; Alyson Stalzer; Ruth A Anderson (2013). "Tool for evaluating research implementation challenges: A sense-making protocol for addressing implementation challenges in complex research settings". Implementation Science. 8: 2. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-2. PMC 3598718. PMID 23281623.
^ Hod Lipson; Jordan B. Pollack; Nam P. Suh (2002). "On the origin of modular variation". Evolution. 56 (8): 1549–1556. doi:10.1554/0014-3820(2002)056[1549:OTOOMV]2.0.CO;2. PMID 12353747.
^ P Frederiksen (2016). "Impacts and interaction in irrigation development in central Chile". International Journal of Water Resources Development. 32 (2): 189–202. Bibcode:2016IJWRD..32..189F. doi:10.1080/07900627.2015.1065175. S2CID 155619683.
^ Anandkumar Prakasam; Nickolas Savarimuthu (January 2016). "Metaheuristic algorithms and probabilistic behaviour: a comprehensive analysis of Ant Colony Optimization and its variants". Artificial Intelligence Review. 45 (1): 97–130. doi:10.1007/s10462-015-9441-y. S2CID 254231051.
^ Gerard Briscoe; Suzanne Sadedin (2009). "Natural Science Paradigms". In Nachira, F.; Nicolai, A.; Dini, P.; Le Louarn, M.; Rivera Le'on (eds.). Digital Business Ecosystems. pp. 48–55. arXiv:0910.0646.
^ Martin A. Trefzer; Andy M. Tyrrell (14 September 2015). "Measurement and Fitness Function". Evolvable Hardware: From Practice to Application. Springer. pp. 119–149. ISBN 9783662446164.

--Dcirovic (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at best, this seems enough for its own article and can be improved as needed. SwisterTwister talk 22:43, 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 per WP:SK#1. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waffen-SS im Einsatz[edit]

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

Book title does not even appear in the first three citations given. Does not itself appear to have been the non-trivial subject of reliable, independent, secondary sources. KDS4444^Talk 06:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see google book search results for this book; this is a significant work in the realm of Waffen-SS historical revisionism and as a part of Waffen-SS in popular culture. It has been characterised by the historian Charles Sydnor as one of the "most important works of [Waffen-SS] apologist literature." K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I don't know what the matter is, but that Google Books link just gives me a plain Google search page waiting to have its search field filled. --Thnidu (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: You could search for: "Waffen-SS im Einsatz" Hausser ; and then switch to Google Books tab.

See for example this book being discussed in The SS: Alibi of a Nation by Gerald Reitlinger. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coffman's link worked fine for me. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is KDS4444 suggesting that Large is not mentioning subject? Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Often cited and described as a significant work in literature about Waffen-SS, e.g. George H. Stein (1984) writes, "Indeed, to my knowledge, there are only three works specifically devoted to the subject: the tendentious and superficial Waffen-SS im Einsatz (Göttingen, 1953) by former SS Oberstgruppenfiihrer (Colonel General) Paul Hausser ..." Sam Sailor ^Talk! 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as the article's creator. This is a significant work in the realm of Waffen-SS historical revisionism and has been characterised by the historian Charles Sydnor as one of the "most important works of [Waffen-SS] apologist literature." Multiple citations to WP:RS are included in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to question whether this is needed as a separate article. Wikipedia:CFORK question arises. Kierzek (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link to SS, the Alibi of a Nation, only mentions the book title in passing— it is not a link to a discussion of the book. However, if the subsequent quote from Stein is correct (we need a citation) then that would likely qualify the work as notable. Is that quote in the article yet? Also: the citation style used in this article does not include links to the works cited, only to their titles— this makes it very difficult to verify any given statement which is being cited, complicating the process. Inline citations should include URLs to the exact place on the Internet (if possible) being referenced. Why this was not done in the first place signifies to me that either the author was not familiar with the process of using such citations or was perhaps deliberately obfuscating the references to conceal lack of notability. In either case, the whole business could be cleared up by adding in these URLs, yes? Lack of these doesn't mean the article should be deleted, it only means that its notability will no longer be open to question (which I am sure the original author would prefer in any case). KDS4444 (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The content was built largely on print books. I am not aware of the requirement that the citations should include "URLs to the exact place on the Internet (if possible) being referenced". That is why I did not quite understand the initial comment the nominator was making about "Book title does not even appear in the first three citations given". I thought maybe they were not seeing any results is Google Books or Google Scholar, which I provided.

I’m not sure how to respond to the nom’s suggestion that the “author (…) was perhaps deliberately obfuscating the references to conceal lack of notability”. Should I defend my integrity as an editor? Search for the where this content could be found online? I find this assumption of bad faith from a fellow editor to be odd and specious. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you used print books as RS sources for cites, there is no requirement to add URL's. Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In his nomination, nom claims that Book title does not even appear in the first three citations given.. At the time of nomination the article looked like this. So does nom mean, that Large does not mention subject when he says "first three citations"? Or does he mean that neither Large, Wilke, nor MacKenzie mention subject? It does not really matter, since all three do mention subject. In other words, nom have not vetted the references before opening this discussion.

Why not? The answer is given in his comment above (diff) The citation style used in this article does not include links to the works cited, only to their titles— this makes it very difficult to verify any given statement which is being cited, complicating the process. Wrong. The citation style used is shortened footnotes, but clicking on an inline ref link takes you to the list of citations from where you have to go to the bibliography list. This failure is identical to nom's failure in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geneva Manifesto. It is not "difficult to verify any given statement", it is easy. It does take a minimum of understanding for referencing.

Nom also says that However, if the subsequent quote from Stein is correct (we need a citation) then that would likely qualify the work as notable. Is that quote in the article yet? Stein is already in the bibliography list, a direct citation and/or quote is not what makes or breaks subject meeting GNG.

Inline citations should include URLs to the exact place on the Internet (if possible) being referenced. And most of them do, but nom demonstrates that he does not actually follow them. Besides, there is no demand that sources are available online, see Wikipedia:Sourceaccess.

The worst mistake of all is, that nom in an assumed belief in his own abilities comments that Why this was not done in the first place signifies to me that either the author was not familiar with the process of using such citations or was perhaps deliberately obfuscating the references to conceal lack of notability. Pardon me, K.e.coffman's content contributions including referencing are admirable; it is nom who thinks he is right, and when he fails to connect the dots and acknowledge where he goes wrong, he then blame shifts. Sad mistake, strictly speaking a serious personal attack. Unwittingly or not.

Considering how one banal mistake after the other is stacking up here, my suggestion to nom is to strike the above comment regarding K.e.coffman and withdraw the nomination by adding * {{Withdraw}}. ~~~~ here below. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn. Having said that, the ad hominem attacks which have followed the nomination have been mean and insulting. I have been slandered here without cause. I asked for information and had it thrown in my face. None of that was necessary. I understand referencing. I also understand that it is often misused. Surely the others in this conversation understand that as well. Sorting through new pages and nominating some for deletion is difficult, and people make mistakes. I make mistakes. I am now satisfied that the subject is notable. I do not feel compelled to address the other accusations being placed here— they are snide. KDS4444 (talk) 22:12, 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. czar 14:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Perseus[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not edited since 2013, numerous police operations throughout the UK have happened throughout and haven't got their own article. Nordic Dragon 09:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 09:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local police initiative, one of many, nothing makes this one notable. Neiltonks (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above. A list of all publicly announced public safety initiatives and their outcome might be interesting though. Aoziwe (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting the needed notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:42, 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 (WP:SNOW) Huon (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly Hopeless[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF with no secondary sources confirming the commencement of filming. (A prod on these grounds was removed by an IP with the edit summary "<ref>First hand account</ref>") The only Google result is a social network page about it, and given that the cast and crew all have the same surname and the budget is $250, I assume this is somebody's home video project. McGeddon (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Enough said, and true to its name. JWNoctis^talk 08:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources come up, and, as the nominator rightly said, this is someone's home video project.
Delete As per above, trivial home video project, not notable Neiltonks (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I am a fellow Australian, yes I do think it needs to go as per above, but I do think we should congratulate HistorianAustralia for being WP:BOLD! Aoziwe (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A yet-to-be-released short film destined for YouTube? Pull the other one, it's got bells onTheLongTone (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as also imaginably speedy material, basically no context at all and nothing at all for notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. If or when it is made and gets coverage, a return might be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:34, 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. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape (Painting by Zlatyu Boyadziev)[edit]

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

There is no reason given to suppose that this painting is in any way notable. And the biog of the article is short enough to have a section on this painting if it is semi-notable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete This painting is part of the Europeana Art History Challenge. It was chosen as one of 10 pieces of art held in Bulgaria that have contributed to a major European art movement. ~~Deleting it would interfere with the challenge. At a minimum , it should be kept until the challenge has completed (30 May 2016).~~ I have changed my mind about this article. No new sources seem to be forthcoming, and nobody appears to have been able to create an article about in in any of non-english wikipedias. After looking into Boyadziev's work a bit more, I am concerned that the little information that we have is incorrect. The work is dated as 1945, which, given the dramatic difference in style before and after Boyadziev's stroke in 1951 in simply inconceivable. See this article from Radio Bulgaria for examples. The painting must have been created in or after 1953, when he resumed painting. But since we have no substantial sources for this work, I now agree that the best course of action is to delete it.Mduvekot (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, what 'contribution to a major European art movement' has this painting made. That's a big claim I find hard to believe having looked at a few of this man's paintings. Matisse he is not. Secondly, the article is of no use to the Europeana Art History Challengein any case; no illustration of the work, not even details of the medium or size.TheLongTone (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about illustration and details have been addressed. Mduvekot (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that my rationale for keeping was flawed (as pointed out below), so I'm striking my referral to the Europeana Art History Challenge, but I'm not comfortable changing my !vote to Delete yet. I think we ought defer our subjective judgment on the merits of this painting to secondary sources, preferably recognized experts in the field. It doesn't matter if I think the painting has made a contribution to a major European art movement, it matters that someone with expert knowledge of Bulgarian art history says it does in a published, reliable source. Additionally, I think that if a work is selected for something like Europeana, that confers notability on the work, just like having a work in the collection of a notable museum confers notability on an artist. Europeana is not an indiscriminate collection of things, but the result of a highly selective process. In summary, the topic meets the notability criteria but the article fails WP:V. If, after the challenge has run its course, there are still no better sources, I'll change my !vote to Delete.Mduvekot (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artist is notable, but this particular work of the artist is not, as it has received no significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:GNG. Note: I edited the article of the artist Zlatyu Boyadzhiev and added more sources and this painting. Prhartcom (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cor swelp me. Now that there is an illustration...well I really don't like making judgements abot paintings without seeing them in the paint but this one really does look effing horrible.TheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment definitely brings a light touch to the dreariness of AfD discussions but there's bound to be someone coming along now to point out that significance or notability don't have much to do with the aesthetic judgements of individual wikipedians. Uanfala (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know that. There's an article on Jack Vettriano for the love of Mike.... And yes, I have seen some of his horrible things for real. They are as entirely tacky as you would expect.TheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the coordinator of the Europeana Art History Challenge, the campaign under which this article was created, I have too much of a vested-interest in this article's existence to be able to vote here.

However! I have already contacted the author of the article Xcia0069; the coordinator of the Bulgarian section of this project Лорд Бъмбъри; and also the Europeana office staff in case anyone can find some specific references to add to this article to improve the notability claim of the painting itself (as opposed to the artist).

I should also like to say that, even though the artwork was selected by the Bulgarian ministry of culture as one of 10 artworks for the Europeana campaign (see all 10 here), I fully acknowledge that "Deleting it would interfere with the challenge" is not a valid argument in Wikipedia AfD debates. Equally however, whether or not the artwork looks "effing horrible" is ALSO irrelevant to Wikipedia AfD debates. Witty lama 12:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Witty, and thank-you for your transparency, for the added information, and for initiating attempts to (hopefully) cause the reliable sources to appear; you truly are of good character to step forward like this. Having said that, this AfD case perfectly illustrates a common problem on Wikipedia: When you say "the campaign under which this article was created", it reveals motivations for article creation other than the only acceptable motivation: to improve the encyclopedia. When I write or improve an article, I am motivated by the stack of reliable sources I have close by. This article was obviously not created with such motivation, nor with any such stack available. The original author obviously scoffed at the Wikipedia:Verifiability requirement. And now we learn that the single reference the article supplies is a link to the actual motivation for creating the article? No, no. Unless references to reliable secondary sources showing subject notability suddenly appear (which could happen, this article needs to be deleted. Prhartcom (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Лорд Бъмбъри has confirmed that an encyclopaedia of Bulgarian artists he found articles about six other paintings of Boyadzhiev, but not of this one in particular. So, unless the staff at the Europeana office have anything else they can add about why the Bulgarian ministry of Culture selected this artwork as one of their 10 to represent their country's selection, then it would appear there is no immediately available WP:RS citations to prove notability and as a result, should be deleted. Just give it a couple of days in case something comes up!

However, I do resent the implication that this challenge doesn't have "acceptable motivation". With a project that asks the ministry of culture of every European Union member state for a list of 10 artworks, in the public art collections of their country, that they think are important and should be represented in the Europeana Art History website - it stands to reason that each of these artworks has a very high chance of reaching the bar of Wikipedia's Notability standards. Furthermore, as Europeana is both publicly-funded and a longtime partner of many Wikimedia projects they have no commercial or POV-pushing interest in Wikipedia other than to increase the availability of knowledge about European art. Now... for this project, several of the countries have submitted artworks that are quite obscure and also unfortunately without any particular explanation of why they selected them. I am not surprised that some of the artworks might have extremely limited information about them - how many contemporary Cypriot painters do we know?! - and therefore I do expect that some will take a fair while before much can be said about them. BUT, I don't think that because this item is being listed (probably successfully) for deletion, should cast doubt on the motivation for the project itself. Witty lama 20:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, Witylama. As you said: "There is no immediately available WP:RS citations to prove notability and as a result, [this article] should be deleted" (in a few days).

Understood, and thank-you for your heartfelt statement. I'm glad, at least, that the next time Europeana creates an article, it will be understood by everyone that Wikipedia's policy of venerability expects the article to be accompanied with reliable sources from the very start. I thank-you again for your efforts; facilitating the resolution of a discussion is always a good thing! Perhaps now an image can be uploaded and article created of one of the notable paintings? All the best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your last comment: perhaps you're not aware of the large amounts of work done by many participants in this challenge already - in English and many other languages. here is the current status on en.wp where you can see how many articles now exist for these works (now over 140, from a baseline below 50 when it started) and and here's a list of all the participants, including myself, listing all the work they've done. So yes, images and articles of notable works ARE being uploaded/created, quite a lot in fact! Witty lama 07:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boadzhiev is obviuosly not Matisse (for example, they have different names), but he has a (reasonably credible) claim of being the most famous Bulgarian painter - whereas Matisse has no claim of being the most famous French painter. Relisted, awaiting for possible sources mentioned in the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/Redirect Delete the article but fully merge its contents into the painter's article, as a list of works with description, for example, but there is too little of everything to keep the article as an article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability whatsoever. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as I believe it's not seriously needed for deletion but it is also closest connected to the man's article. SwisterTwister talk 22:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody is going to search for this painting at English Wikipedia. The work of art is totally run of the mill; likewise, there is no real evidence that this painting is as pivotal as alleged. This page borders on spam. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spam? That's a bit of an exaggeration. Nobody is promoting anything here. A painting by a dead painting that is in a public collection? What's for sale? Nothing. The painting is actually not run-of-the-mill at all, it is representative (if not the first) of a drastic change in style that occurred after the painter lost the use of his (dominant) right hand. If we had sources, it could make a nice article. Unfortunately we don't, so it ought to be deleted. And all this vitriol because the painting is ugly? Tsk, tsk. Mduvekot (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Mduvekot. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not and has never been a valid deletion rationale. Nevertheless, all of my requests to experts and to the collection owner itself have gone without result. There has now been ample time to discover extra sources and they have not been found. So - delete. Witty lama 07:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable painting, doesnt warrant an article. DeviantAttitude (talk) 14:13, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sergiu Prodan Author[edit]

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

Self published author with no coverage in google. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. noq (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A peacockery-ridden biography of a CreateSpace author, on which a sequence of 3 WP:SPA accounts defeated a CSD A7. If this recurs, a WP:SPI may be needed. No evidence of notability found for this person (noting others of the same name); fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 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 speedy delete. copyvio from http://www.los-angeles-university.com/faculty/#DanielH.

He might be notable, if a proper nonpromotional article were written without copyvio or close paraphrase. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hasidim[edit]

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

Some notability exists, but on the edge. As far as I see, there are not enough sources to pass WP:GNG Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this is currently convincing of the needed notability including WP:PROF....Not to mention this is completely unsourced thus PROD applicable. Asking DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 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 Matt Howarth. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Bulldaggers[edit]

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

NN fictional band. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 05:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matt Howarth as a plausible search term. As a fictional entity, WP:MUSIC doesn't apply. WP:GNG applies everywhere, though, and I am unable to find any significant coverage in sources that would meet WP:RS. VQuakr (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Matt Howarth - or possibly to Savage Henry (comics), although I suspect that is also non-notable and liable to be redirected. This article has no references so it is entirely unverified, and I could find no sources in a quick search. --MelanieN (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and I nearly closed it myself, clearly not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 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. Nakon 02:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sociopolitical Ramifications[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to List of MUDs would work if someone finds suitable reliable references to source its entry. czar 03:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book cite is notability-establishing, but I don't think I can argue the same for the Mud Connector MOTM with a straight face any more, and as far as I can tell that's the entire universe of available reliable sourcing. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Please don't redirect to List of MUDs; that list's inclusion criteria consist of having an article or a section of an article about the MUD, so a redirect is just a mess to clean up. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:39, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Materia Magica[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to List of MUDs would work if someone finds suitable reliable references to source its entry. czar 03:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources, and the custom search comes up empty. The mudconnect.com review looks self-published, and the standard Google results are generally about occultism. There was a hit or two on Google Books for lists of MUDs, but that's obviously a trivial mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any meaningful sourcing. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Please don't redirect to List of MUDs; that list's inclusion criteria consist of having an article or a section of an article on the MUD, so a redirect is just a mess to clean up. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no indication that the game is noteworthy, or even any clear description in this article what the game is.OtterAM (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as I simply found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 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 LPMud. There is no consensus on what content can be merged, but the history of this article is still accessible after it is redirected. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NannyMUD[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 03:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 03:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Going by the PDF available on Google Scholar, Language Learning and MUDs: an Overview uses it extensively as an example of how to interact with a MUD, but I'm not sure that's enough to establish notability. It doesn't actually describe the history of the MUD or anything specific like that. There are a few entries in lists of MUDs archived in Google Books, but that's about as trivial as you can get. Besides that, I don't see anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see a redirect to LPMud, but I'm a little worried that a merge would simply shift this poorly-sourced content to another article. If the official website says it was founded in 1990, I guess that's good enough for me, but to claim that it's one of the longest running online games ever would require secondary sourcing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the difficulty now, thanks. I agree--the sources I know don't make that claim , so we could not merge that. I was just thinking of basic facts like when it was founded and by who. But in the interest of consensus, I'd be OK with a redirect. --Mark viking (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is really revolting, but for whatever reason the people who were writing about MUDs back when MUDs were something people wrote about seem to have completely skipped by this definitely significant MUD. It's legitimately a loss to Wikipedia to delete this article but I don't see any standards-consistent way around it. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to LPMud, where it is mentioned. This should be notable, but it falls through the cracks of WP's notability thresholds. Nevertheless, NinjaRobotPirate's noted RS along with copious primary sources provides verifiability of basic facts about the MUD. As an example of a long-running LPMud, that article would be a natural merge target. I suggest that the lead and Characteristics section seem verifiable from the Javnost and Asensio sources and could be merged to LPMud without creating an undue balance. --Mark viking (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NannyMUD website is not a good source for exceptional claims about the significance of its longevity. The MUD is mentioned as one in a list—I don't see what there is to merge unless you're starting a section or list of LPMuds. If it's an easy merge, you can also just do it, and we'd have to redirect the article to preserve attribution. czar 20:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to do the merge if that become the consensus. But doing so before the AfD is closed is bad form, as it is considered forcing the outcome, per WP:EDITATAFD --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point of AfD is to find consensus (hopefully swiftly)—if you have a means to use the content for good, I doubt anyone would take umbrage [Edit: Though I'll add that I personally don't see any secondary source content worth merging.] czar 01:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 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. czar 02:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Usagi[edit]

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

No entry for this manga in ANN, although there is an article that says it was listed by some bookstores list (not Oricon) in the top 10 BL manga for 2014. [27] Is that enough to keep it around? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet GNG. No cited sources and I can find no others. The artist Kentarō Kobayashi is also not very notable, certainly not for being a manga artist. Prhartcom (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable manga series, I am also in agreement with the above comment about Kentarō Kobayashi. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting the needed notability and its improvements, current information gives nothing to suggest this can be improved now. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 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. czar 01:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Eppers[edit]

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

Non-notable local singer/actor without substantial press coverage. The only source that actually substantially discusses her is a single local blog which is not enough to satisfy WP:N. This appears to be a promotional page rather than an unbiased encyclopedia entry. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable (yet) actor with no national or international recognition. Most refs are imdb or youtube. Reads like the promotional blurb her agent might supply when putting her forward for a role. Neiltonks (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. I could not find any independent coverage of her on Google. ツStacey (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I manage kate eppers page- and i would love for it too remain, What steps can I take to ensure it doesent go anywhere? I have put a lot of work into this page and would hate to see it go for unknown reason. please help me understand why its up for deletion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alisonkaye (talk • contribs) 21:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above was misplaced on the main AfD page, so I copied it here, where it was clearly intended. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alisonkaye: The article is not being nominated for deletion for "unknown reason" as you claim; it is because there is no need for this article on Wikipedia. Wikipedia only includes articles that pass a notability test - that is, that are about people or things of demonstrated significance. Merely being a musician is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:Notability (music) includes a list of criterion for when a musician is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and Kate Eppers does not pass these tests. She is a minor local musician who has not received major airplay or press attention (i.e, articles on Pitchfork, the Boston Globe, Rolling Stone, etc). It's not a matter of whether you can "do anything" to stop the article being deleted or how much you try; you chose to create an article about someone who is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so the community is discussing whether the article should be deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It looks too soon for an article yet. It's got lots of citations, but they're all to YouTube videos, IMDb credits, social media profiles, or other sources unable to demonstrate notability. Google searches don't turn up anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article noticeably has troubles that need improvements, simply not convincing of the needed notability yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 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 delete. czar 01:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shinya Suzuki[edit]

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

Manga artist known mainly for one title Mr. Fullswing. There's another series called Bari Haken but it is not notable for English Wikipedia. Not clear whether any of his other works are notable or even ranked in Oricon. Recommend merge to Mr. Fullswing where his biography background can be developed there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Found only one other passing reference: "VIDEO: Announcement for "Jump Live" Smartphone App - UPDATED". Crunchyroll. June 30, 2013. Retrieved May 3, 2016.. The article of the artist's most successful manga doesn't have any references either. Nor really enough here to merge anywhere. Prhartcom (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person, the Japanese wiki article fares no better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently not suggesting the needed independent notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 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. czar 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnum opus[edit]

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

A clean-cut dicdef. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Very much a dictionary definition. No doubt we will get people claiming it should be kept because it's a 'notable phrase' or because they can find examples of it being used, but I don't see this going beyond a dicdef. --Michig (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Disambiguatize (take that AfD stats bot!) - There are many senses of this term. This one is already covered at Masterpiece, which opens with "Masterpiece or chef d'œuvre in modern use refers to a creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career or to a work of outstanding creativity, skill, or workmanship." (emphasis mine). In other words, there's no need for this article, so we might as well delete it and move Magnum opus (disambiguation) into its place. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguatize: delete the definition and move Magnum opus (disambiguation) here. The DAB already includes a definition and links to Wiktionary and Masterpiece. It is unlikely the topic could be expanded beyond dictionary content without duplicating Masterpiece. Cnilep (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguatize seems like the right call here. I cannot find any serious academic treatment of this, but really I don't think see how it is meaningfully different from masterpiece, so I am not sure if a disambig is necessary; nothing else in the see also seems that similar, really, so perhaps redirect might be another option to consider. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not go into the subtleties of English, but there is a clear difference in the usage of "masterpiece" and "m.o.", although the two do have a common part. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Disambiguate if needed as this seems best considering the current article. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 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. czar 01:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mugisha Latif[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was 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. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears that the subjects only listings are in the typical broad coverage sports databases/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 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) 07:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person presently does not satisfy notability guidelines. --Dcirovic (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the needed independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuka Koyama[edit]

(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)w

VA known as Helena in Dead or Alive series, but not obvious what her other lead roles are. His and Her Circumstances, Marmalade Boy are supporting roles. That she dubbed for the US version of Power Rangers might be of interest but it is difficult to find any articles that support her notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all suggesting the needed independent notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 12:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Part of me wants the article to be kept, if only because she shares a name with a certain voice actress and a relatively notorious younger sister, and moreso because of her role in the Dead or Alive series, but searching, even using her name in Japanese, fail to find enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Im sorry but this lacks the WP:RS, it looks to me Naruto have given a good try trying to find some but came up short. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:42, 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.

[1] Greg Paperin; Suzanne Sadedin (2009). "A Dual Phase Evolution Model of Adaptive Radiation in Landscapes". Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence. Funchal - Madeira, Portugal: 135–143. ISBN 9789896740146.

[2] James M. Whitacre (2009). "Evidence of coevolution in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms" (PDF). WorldComp. Las Vegas, NV, USA. arXiv:0907.0329.

[3] I. Steinbach; F. Pezzolla; B. Nestler; M. Seeßelberg; R. Prieler; G.J. Schmitz; J.L.L. Rezende (1 July 1996). "A phase field concept for multiphase systems". Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena. 94 (3): 135–147. Bibcode:1996PhyD...94..135S. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(95)00298-7.

[4] Nadav Kashtan; Elad Noor; Uri Alon (2007). "Varying environments can speed up evolution" (PDF). PNAS. 104 (34): 13711–13716. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10413711K. doi:10.1073/pnas.0611630104. PMC 1948871. PMID 17698964.

[5] Georgios Chintzoglou; Jie Zhang (2013). "Reconstructing the subsurface three-dimensional magnetic structure of a solar active region using SDO/HMI observations". The Astrophysical Journal Letters. 764 (1): L3. arXiv:1301.4651. Bibcode:2013ApJ...764L...3C. doi:10.1088/2041-8205/764/1/L3.

[6] Q.J. Zhao; Z.M. Wen (2012). "Integrative networks of the complex social-ecological systems". Procedia Environmental Sciences. 13: 1383–1394. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.131.

[7] Kelly M Simpson; Kristie Porter; Eleanor S McConnell; Cathleen Colón-Emeric; Kathryn A Daily; Alyson Stalzer; Ruth A Anderson (2013). "Tool for evaluating research implementation challenges: A sense-making protocol for addressing implementation challenges in complex research settings". Implementation Science. 8: 2. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-2. PMC 3598718. PMID 23281623.

[8] Hod Lipson; Jordan B. Pollack; Nam P. Suh (2002). "On the origin of modular variation". Evolution. 56 (8): 1549–1556. doi:10.1554/0014-3820(2002)056[1549:OTOOMV]2.0.CO;2. PMID 12353747.

[9] P Frederiksen (2016). "Impacts and interaction in irrigation development in central Chile". International Journal of Water Resources Development. 32 (2): 189–202. Bibcode:2016IJWRD..32..189F. doi:10.1080/07900627.2015.1065175. S2CID 155619683.

[10] Anandkumar Prakasam; Nickolas Savarimuthu (January 2016). "Metaheuristic algorithms and probabilistic behaviour: a comprehensive analysis of Ant Colony Optimization and its variants". Artificial Intelligence Review. 45 (1): 97–130. doi:10.1007/s10462-015-9441-y. S2CID 254231051.

[11] Gerard Briscoe; Suzanne Sadedin (2009). "Natural Science Paradigms". In Nachira, F.; Nicolai, A.; Dini, P.; Le Louarn, M.; Rivera Le'on (eds.). Digital Business Ecosystems. pp. 48–55. arXiv:0910.0646.

[12] Martin A. Trefzer; Andy M. Tyrrell (14 September 2015). "Measurement and Fitness Function". Evolvable Hardware: From Practice to Application. Springer. pp. 119–149. ISBN 9783662446164.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]