Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 May	7 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 redirect to Big 12 Conference. Sandstein 08:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big 12 Expansion[edit]

I would like a vote for deletion on this article. This article is a rumor about something that hasn't--or may not--ever happen. The cited articles cite anonymous sources Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:RS. Additionally, this is a rapidly changing news event and information could rapidly change and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper.

Keep or Merge to Big 12 conference. A lot of recent coverage of the topic [1], in addition to the article's current sources. But since it is a matter of (widespread) speculation, perhaps it's better suited as a section in the parent article. 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big 12 Conference as there's no context to suggest this can become its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 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 speedy delete. Per CSD:G7 Nakon 05:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ação Cautelar 4070[edit]

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

This article and redirect was meant for the Wikipedia in Portuguese. Its creation here was a mistake. Kripmo (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niki Smart (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR JMHamo (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not per author's rationale. The article (even though being wrongly titled 'author') is about a musician. There is the LA Times mention here ([2]), but it's really not enough to write a whole article on and there's no other reliable sources that I can find. Delete because of WP:NMUSIC. Nomader (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Nomader, not a clear speedy, but basically a self-penned vanity page for non-notable person Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches are not finding convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Florczyk[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator, User:Wisnie26, with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). The creator added some more external links, but I do not see how they help. As I noted, the only coverage of the subject (his work, etc.) I found was from an exhibition at a regional Polish library's webpage. Not counting a things like homepages and articles by subject, external links now also contain an interview in a website (Broadsided Press) that seems half ngo/half publishing house ([3]), another interview published in a blog-like magazine ([4]), and [5], which seems at least half written by the subject. I just don't see how anything here, even added together, help with WP:NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Piotr. Thank you for your comments on the Piotr Florczyk entry. Please allow me to justify the entry. When posting the entry, I did not intend to write a biography of this person. Instead, Florczyk (under Wikipedia guidelines) is viewed as "notable" because of his literary contributions, especially in the area of translation, which connects him to numerous other notable figures in Poland and the United States. Because of this sort of contribution, like hundreds of other entries long established on Wikipedia listed as "academics" and "creative professionals", secondary criticism of Florczyk's is irrelevant. It is true that some of the external links are not "independent", but others are reliable and offer significant coverage.

I am new to writing Wikipedia entries, and would appreciate your assistance in making this what you deem more worthy. The intention of Wikipedia, as I understand it, is a collective adding, contributing, and sharing. Thanks, [[User:Wisnie26 9:47 28, April 2016 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisnie26 (talk • contribs)

Dear User:Wisnie26. The intention of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. Articles about people should be biographical ones. They need to meet certain requirements: see WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BIO. As well as WP:What Wikipedia is not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the moment, there doesn't seem to be enough independent and reliable sources for pass WP:GNG. Piotrus has correctly pointed out that the 3 links with a bit more coverage are not independent reliable sources; they seem like publisher affiliated blogs to me. I could try applying the more specific WP:AUTHOR criteria here, but unfortunately none of them is satisfied here as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, still questionable for the needed solidity, I waited until commenting here for others to say something else instead, but the article is still questionable with nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 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 of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Editors arguing for keep have focused on this candidate's near-certainty to become an Australian MP later this year and the coverage he has already received from his political activism and candidacy. Editors arguing for delete disputed his notability hitherto and argued that he does not deserve an article until after the election. Similar debates have arisen with the UK general election last year as well. These cases tend to be borderline on AfDs and the likelihood of a "keep" outcome scales with the certainty of winning, but the AfD community generally can't agree on a blanket rule on what to do with candidates of upcoming elections with high chances of winning but otherwise have limited notability. Der yck C. 16:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Falinski[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated or reliably sourced indication of notability is being an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL — if you cannot demonstrate that a person was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become eligible for an article until he wins the election. But the only other things here are that he served on a local government area council and that he was a past president of his political party's youth chapter, neither of which is a free pass over NPOL either if the substance and sourcing aren't at the level necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition, it warrants mention that the creator's username is "Aurevoirbronny" — the incumbent MP Falinski defeated in candidate preselection for the next election is Bronwyn Bishop — so there's a clear conflict of interest of some kind here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's been a reasonably public figure in non-parliamentary politics for more than twenty years, including stints as president of the Young Liberals, as a key figure in Malcolm Turnbull's entry into parliament, and as a spokesperson for the Australian Republican Movement, as well as in local government, and is covered not just in mainstream press but in book sources too. He has more sources than some of our current MPs even deliberately excluding everything about his (extremely well-reported upon) preselection, and as an endorsed candidate for one of the safest Liberal seats in the country, he stands a 100% chance of being a federal MP in ten weeks. I mightn't have created it myself to avoid the chances that time would be wasted on a nomination like this, but deleting it now just to undelete it in ten weeks is a waste of everyone else's time when he'd still pass WP:GNG even if he got hit by a bus tomorrow. I really despise this habit some of Australian Wikipedia has of going out of their way to nominate people for deletion specifically on the basis that they're an endorsed candidate for elected office as if it's a claim against notability: if the amount of sources on someone like this were treated like any other biography we wouldn't even be having the discussion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to simply assert that greater notability and sourceability exist outside of anything that's actually in the article — if those things are true, then they have to be explicitly shown in the article as written. But that hasn't been done here; as written, the article is claiming and sourcing nothing substantive beyond the preselection itself (which is not, in and of itself, valid basis for a Wikipedia article.) And if "we might have to recreate this again in ten weeks" were, in and of itself, enough of a reason to keep an article, then we'd have to keep every article about any candidate at all in any election — and then we wouldn't be an encyclopedia anymore, but a PR repository of campaign brochures. If you want the article to be kept, then add more substance and better sourcing to it so that it makes his preexisting notability clear — but it's not enough to just claim that he has preexisting notability if the article isn't showing it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has a couple of hundred Factiva hits prior to his nomination for preselection, with quite a few in detail, in quite a few different contexts, and in quite a few different forms of media. You can't argue that it's a case of WP:BLP1E because he got specific national media as president of the Young Liberals and for his role in the Australian Republican Movement and for his role in the Malcolm Turnbull preselection last decade (amongst other things) before it ever came to this. (Of course, then he got a tonne of useful coverage about his preselection, too.) There isn't an exception to WP:GNG that makes articles on someone with hundreds of newspaper articles, radio and television sources, and book sources not meet that just because you can't be bothered doing your homework. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my "homework" to do — I can only do WP:BEFORE research in databases and resources that I have access to, and do not have a responsibility to psychically know that better coverage might exist in databases that I don't have access to. And since any coverage of him at all is entirely nonexistent in any resources that I can access, that leaves me able to evaluate the article's includability or nonincludability solely on the basis of the volume of sourcing that is or isn't present in the article as written. If you have access to the resources necessary to demonstrate that he does actually pass GNG on depth and volume of coverage that hasn't been shown yet, then that's great, but that makes getting the article up to scratch your homework and not mine. And as I noted the first time, GNG is not passed just because somebody asserts that media coverage exists — anybody can claim that media coverage exists of anything, even if it actually doesn't. So GNG is not passed by asserting that more coverage exists than the article is showing — it's passed by somebody putting in the time and effort needed to ensure that a GNG-satisfying depth and volume of coverage is present in the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. "Entirely nonexistent"? Honey, I'm pretty sure you have access to Google. I don't write articles at gunpoint under the threat of deletionists doing stupid things - I write them if I'm asked, politely. "I can't be bothered looking into his notability and he's a candidate for public office" is not a reason for deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take your snarky attitude and stuff it in a gopher hole. I know how to Google, and I did — what I found was almost exclusively coverage of the preselection itself (which is not a thing that gets a person a Wikipedia article). Other than that, there were a few glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, but I did not find any strong evidence of coverage that was about him in the substantive way needed to satisfy GNG. A person does not, for instance, get over GNG just because you can find five or ten articles in which they're quoted giving soundbite in an article whose main subject is something or somebody else that is not him — which is the sort of "coverage" that people frequently try to pass off as showing GNG, but it doesn't. Passing GNG is a matter of the quality of coverage that can be shown, not the raw number of text matches that can be found. It's certainly possible that better coverage may exist in subscription databases that I don't have access to — but that coverage has to be dug out and shown before it counts for anything, because Google certainly isn't offering the level of proof needed. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you really wanted to assess the sources (instead of lazily trying to reinforce your position), you could (shock!) try searching for him with various preselection terms removed. (Or, even better, do an actual newspaper search! Someone who makes as many deletion nominations as you should surely have a library card. Of course, if you did that, then you wouldn't be able to justify nominating well-sourced topics for deletion on a whim as easily, so I can't say I'm surprised you don't bother.) There is a lot more than glancing coverage out there and "I quickly Googled someone currently in the headlines for something and I found things related to the thing he's in the headlines for, couldn't be bothered going beyond that" is a shoddy deletion argument. The Drover's Wife (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to remind yourself where I live again, if you think that my library card — which is in my hand as I type this, just so you can't accuse me of not having one again — would give me access to any pregooglable newspaper coverage of an Australian municipal councillor. I quite regularly spend hours at a time combing through the newspaper databases that I have access to, so I need no lessons in research skills from you — but I can only dig into the newspaper databases that are available for me to dig into, and beyond that I'm limited to Google. This is not a question of what I could or couldn't be "bothered" to do. All Wikipedians do not have perfectly equal access to all newspaper coverage that has ever existed at all — libraries pick and choose the databases they offer to their clientele, so just because you can access old Australian newspaper coverage does not mean that I can. So the fact that I can't find this 20-year-old coverage that you're claiming is out there does not mean I'm a bad Wikipedian — if it's really out there, then somebody who can access it needs to add it to the article so that his notability and sourceability become more apparent than it is in the version that exists right now. But I do not have access to the necessary resources to be that somebody — the databases I can access are different from the ones you can, so I can only evaluate the article on the basis of resources that I can access. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "a key figure in Malcolm Turnbull's entry into parliament" and serving as a spokesperson for the Australian Republican Movement do not seem to be notable roles to me. My searches produce little coverage prior to his selection as a parliamentary candidate. Stating that he is contesting a safe seat and is therefore given a free pass is incorrect. WP:NPOL is very clear about this. AusLondonder (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when did people forget that WP:GNG exists? He has hundreds of sources about him, and it's not like plenty of them aren't in Google. Running for office is not a reason against deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are they? Why don't you add them to the article? AusLondonder (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you? Hundreds of sources of sufficient specificity = passes WP:GNG. I don't expand articles at gunpoint, and I take badly to other editors voting delete when sources indisputably exist. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. (Yes, that's my vote.) Look, I've been hardline delete on these cases for many years, but in the end I've come to the view that these kinds of AfDs are really a waste of everyone's time, given that they will have a straight-down-the-line result come election time. Yes, this one's a little way out, but there's also enough other activity to make notability at least a reasonable discussion regardless of his candidacy (especially presidency of the Young Libs). I have not gone in detail into these sources, as events will soon render such a thing a waste of time, but there is a fair preponderance of it. So I guess you could say that I kind of lean keep, unenthusiastically, with no prejudice against another AfD post-election if by some miracle he loses. I freely admit very little policy basis for this !vote, beyond thinking we all have better things to do with our time than having full-fledged AfD debates about shoo-in electoral candidates. Frickeg (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been elections in which the "shoo-in" candidate actually lost in the end (Google "Rolf Dinsdale"), or was forced to withdraw in advance of election day for health or scandal reasons, or occasionally even died (see Mel Carnahan). We're not in the business of publishing electoral predictions, per WP:CRYSTAL — we're in the business of waiting until the election is over. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carnahan? A state governor? Hardly equivalent. I'm fully aware of all that, and as I said I have no problem with the article being AfDed after the election should something along those lines happen - although I suspect I'd be arguing keep based on the other coverage. But this whole discussion is the exact reason I went this way, and that I'm now formalising this to a keep !vote: look at all the Drama that has been generated, and the time wasted, for something that, two months from now, will 99% be an open-and-shut case. In principle candidate articles should not be created - but let's not waste all this time on the shoo-in ones that are, especially ones with a clear case for notability such as here (and the sources stuff - I mean, his roles alone suggest there will be sources, even if they aren't accessible). This was also discussed on WT:AUP prior to this nomination, which might have been a good place to raise things too. Frickeg (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is nearly a dead certainty that he will be elected, with the party he will contest the seat for being holding with a 30% margin, thus being one of the safest in the country. So unless he goes under a bus, come the election whether it be 10 weeks for 10 months away, he will then be notable. So any deletion will only be short term. And as stated above, he is already a public figure. If it was an article seeking to promote the candidate through puffing up his achievements then it should be deleted, but as it stands it is a down the middle statement of facts, so keep. Mbrjunc (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The margin in the Division of Mackellar is 18%. He was a councillor. That does not meet WP:NPOL AusLondonder (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is a thing. His notability is not predicated on him being a political candidate, it's predicated upon him having hundreds of sources about him going back twenty years. Being a political candidate is not a reason for deletion, much as a couple editors seem to think so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 2-party preferred margin is 69/31 so 38%. Short of a major boilover, Falinski is a shoe in. Even if this article is deleted it will likely only be temporary. If editors spent the time they have bitching over points of order to instead improve the article, we would probably have a much better end product. I mean 18 posts by one editor on a delete nomination that if carried will probably only last for 2 months, a bit over the top? Aurevoirbronny (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aurevoirbronny: You're obviously not a new editor, as this edit shows. However, where you succeed at creating new pages, you fail at maths. The margin is 18%. Nearly 19% to be accurate. Bishop won 68.84% of the 2PP vote in 2013. So if the Liberal Party suffered a 2PP swing of 19%, they would lose the seat. 68.84% - 19% = 49.84%. AusLondonder (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not enough for the applicable politicians notability, no other context to suggest this can be convincingly kept. SwisterTwister talk 07:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep there are 76 articles that mention this politician in Factiva, over the last 15 years. There are a few that mention him in the title. eg "How the Falinski effect could elevate Morrison" - "Falinski gagged until he’s officially endorsed" and there is an article way back in 2002 that specifically discusses him "Getting the right spin on it." Clearly of note, not sure why this has been debated.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I raised this over at Wikiproject Australian politics a few weeks ago when it was created. At that point I decided not to nominate the article as it's more or less a foregone conclusion that Falinski will get up and that going through the deletion process would have been process wonkery for process's sake. I still think that that is what this nomination is, but now that we're here it's pretty obvious that Falinski does not meet WP:NPOL. Add me to the list of those who would like to know who User:Aurevoirbronny's real account is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Elections fall under WP:CRYSTAL as a topic not usually appropriate for Wikipedia. The real concern, at this point, is whether the subject meets WP:GNG. I challenge editors who have access to more substantive sourcing to edit and improve the article. Enos733 (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strictly following the guidelines means that this needs to currently be deleted. Regardless of his odds of winning, after the election is when this article should have been written. Perhaps userfying it until the election's results are in is the most appropriate way to go. Would not be adverse to that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nakon 19:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Avion[edit]

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

Nearly all sources on this multi-named artist are WP:PRIMARY interviews or the subject's own websites; the only reliable secondary ones I can see are that an American writer called Pablo Lopez coined the term "pataphor" (possibly in 1994?), and that "Paul Avion & Par Avion" were listed as one of at least 32 up-and-coming unsigned bands by Spin magazine in 2009. (There is no reliable source that I can see which confirms that Pablo Lopez and Paul Avion are the same person.) Avion doesn't appear to meet the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, with no nationally-charted albums or signings to major labels. McGeddon (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Immediately. Pablo Avion aka Pablo Lopez has never accomplished anything, and all those sources from small indie publications, SPIN, radio stations, the book quotation, and the like don't mean anything! And if you can't connect those two names, it must be wrong.

ALSO, no one visits "Fashion Week Online" -- regardless of whether it's mentioned in CNN, Lonely Planet, or Time Out NY! No one!!

Botnick6000 (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Botnick6000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better at all and the current article, while sourced, actually has nothing convincing for applicable notability, examining the list of sources shows nothing outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The SPIN mention, radio station mentions, and KSPC chart are notable. The pataphor entry is in an academic book. As far as we can see from his own websites, Pablo Avion and Pablo Lopez are the same person. Maybe it just needs an overhaul and rewrite as Pablo Lopez.Johnsonsons (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC) — Johnsonsons (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This person is inventor of the pataphor.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojobird7 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 May 2016‎

Keep Maybe needs cleanup. Wavetopia 11 (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)— Wavetopia 11 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's likely best noting the Keep votes are not suggesting how and when this can be improved, this all altogether best deleted for now. SwisterTwister talk 04:57, 14 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 the organization's history for multiple victories in national championships would suggest some degree of notability. Absent of deletion calls beyond the nominator, this can be considered a non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tornion Palloveikot[edit]

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

Non-notable sports club Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you consider the six-time men's bandy champions of Finland non-notable? Bandy is a pretty major sport there. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as the Suomi Wikipedia shows extra information and this certainly will need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 22:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, as a multiple winner of national championships of a major sport in its nation. I didn't bother to say this before because I thought that it was obvious from my comment above, but it seems that most AfD closers need bolded votes rather than reasoned arguments to base their decisions on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:10, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Paz Show[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that airing on a notable national television network is a valid claim of notability in principle for a television series, a TV series does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because it can be verified as having existed (which some YouTube clips do offer here). Just like any other notability claim, rather, it has to be supported by reliable source coverage in media before it actually makes the article keepable in reality. But this cites no sources, and on a search of both Google and ProQuest I'm simply not finding anything better. ~~So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find better sourcing than I've been able to, but in this state it's a delete.~~ Some new sources have been added — they're still not great ones overall, but they support a strong enough claim of notability that I'm willing to give it a chance at further improvement. Weak keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There's not a lot visible, and it might need a rename to "Paz the Penguin", however this indicates that it was Daytime Emmy nominated (wikipedia says three times -- the 32nd, 33rd and 34th but I'm not digging). "Ready+Set+Learn"+logo+paz&dq="Ready+Set+Learn"+logo+paz&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixnqvUtcTMAhVLp5QKHVatDOEQ6AEITDAH this and this have a little more. And Paz was apparently the logo character for long-running program Ready Set Learn; there's some info from RSL here, which indicates a Silver Parents' Choice Award. Early childhood mags of the early 2000s may also have had articles. A merge/redirect to RSL might be an alternative but that should be considered together with its other shows if so. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Award and nominations added in. Though it was thrice nominated for a Daytime Emmy, Sesame St won all three years. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for at least general notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 07:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears to have won a Daytime Emmy, probably sufficient notability in itself. WP:GOOGLETESTing throws up lots of results but being a preschoolers show it doesn't exactly attract many reviews from the major newspapers. Fiachra10003 (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No evidence of WP:BEFORE. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 13:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep It might meet WP:GNG, and there is just enough sources to vote keep, barely. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:03, 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 procedural close. Disruptive nomination made by socking user, riddled with a very suspicious amount of anonymous IPs. If a proper request is required, please feel free to open one after this close. (Note: This close has no bearing on any future AFDs regarding this article.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Pop Records[edit]

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

DELETE Promotional article for personal (failed) business of a Wikipedia user who has edited this article extensively. Sources cited are unreliable and insufficient for WP:ORG Mohsinpathania (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know what's going on, but this seems like a personal grudge. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Devouard (3rd nomination). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what's going on either. The nominator here also nominated another article whose notability has not been demonstrated and is not easily demonstrable, and so this must be a personal grudge? Unless anyone can substantiate the basis of these personal attacks against the nominator then I would say that something smells pretty bad in the way that that editor has been vilified here and elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I explained my reasons for doubting the nominator's motivations in my recommendation. The nominator was recently indeffed over at Commons for his disruptive behavior. Here, the editor has a very short contribution history consisting almost exclusively of nominating for deletion pages with admitted COIs by Wikipedia administrators. The pattern of behavior looks suspicious and pointy to me. Rebb ing 19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why shouldn't anyone look for COIs by Wikipedia administrators, and nominate articles for deletion when the sources don't stack up? People do the same with people who are not Wikipedia administrators and are congratulated for doing so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - You twist my words. I'm not objecting to editors who choose to pursue sysop-involved COI issues. Instead, I'm saying that it appears that the nominator has made this series of nominations to retaliate or to prove some point, and I find it difficult to believe that this is the nominator's first or only account. Moreover, I wasn't aware that we congratulated anyone, long-standing editors included, for pursuing COI bogeyman when the conflicts have been plainly disclosed. I concede that, on the merits, the subject does not appear to be notable. Rebb ing 20:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If you believe that the subject does not appear to be notable then why is there still a bolded "keep" by your contribution below? This discussion is about the article and its subject. Discussions about editor behaviour belong elsewhere. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe that a bad-faith nomination is an appropriate basis for retention: as I see it, discouraging disruption is more important than removing non-notable articles. Because neither of the editors supporting the nomination are able to nominate articles themselves, closing this as keep would not be an exercise in futility. Rebb ing 21:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course I can nominate an article for deletion - I simply have to register a silly pseudonym rather than reveal where I am editing from. I'm sure that wouldn't take more than a few seconds. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see how an article covering a failed business venture can be promotional. Carrite did not create the article; his conflict is declared on the talk page; and his changes are constructive and neutral. Rebb ing 02:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It could be sourced but I don't care much about Socky the Grudgester coming back to WP after registering exactly one year ago to settle some score. Delete it or not, whatever. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC) P.S. Calling MP a "business" misses the point of the 100+ releases entirely. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's none of my business, but I wouldn't mind hearing the background on the nominator. Exactly one year ago from what? As another contributor has commented on the apparent impropriety of this nomination, I believe whatever you're willing to provide would be relevant to this discussion. Rebb ing 04:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - THIS. Carrite (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the impropriety of the nomination. Cf. WP:SKCRIT point 2. In my estimation, the article's notability is debatable—not clearly lacking, not obviously established—but I do not believe it's appropriate to reach that question under the circumstances.

I do not make such an accusation lightly, but I believe it's necessary in this case. The nominator's contributions to English Wikipedia speak for themselves: few new users begin their editing careers by nominating articles for deletion. But far more troubling is his record on Commons, where his account has been blocked indefinitely as an account "used exclusively for disruption" (emphasis added). (His talk page and contributions provide more details, if any are needed.) Rebb ing 04:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm not recommending speedy retention per Criterion 2; I'm voting for retention based on suspicious behavior by analogy ("cf.") to Criterion 2. My argument is not invalidated by the fact that we now have an uninvolved editor recommending deletion; however, as an argument not grounded in policy or guidelines, I expect the closer will give my position little, if any, weight. Rebb ing 19:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You are mistaken Sir. I was clearly blocked on Commons for requesting a deletion for monkey selfie image. My ground was that the EXIF data (Copyyright Management Information) had been stripped out in breach of USC code by a Commons bureuacrat and sysop to misrepresent that the image was authored in 2011, and not 2008 as published on NBCNEWS.COM. I am presently in active correspondence with your Websites legal counsel over this block and related issues, and certain clarifications have already been provided to me by Shri Rogers (Legal Counsel for Wikipedia). I am not at all describable as a vandal or disruptive person for pointing out breaches of Foundation Terms of Usage and US laws applicable to your esteemed website,and I am not in any edit war on your website. Mohsinpathania (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - length of operation and number of releases involving notable bands indicates cultural significance. For what it's worth, this is one of the few punk labels I've actually heard of before being forced to learn about so many here in Wikipedialand. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - No reliable sources. Non-notable 1 man show with article created by owner and "friends" who hurl WP:NPAs like "Socky the Grudgemaster" 120.56.114.246 (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Admin in response to Malcolmxl5 below. The first edit of Carrite is relevant for WP:DUCK considering Carrite's NPA remark return of Socky the Grudgester directed against the nominator - WP:BOOMERANG. Is there any reliable source that Tim Davenport and Timbo Chandler are the same person ? 120.56.118.252 (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator appears to be going through articles with declared COIs and nominating them for deletion without checking sources. The sources used here are certainly independent, though I can't speak of their reliability. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why are you shying away from speaking of their reliability ? It is certainly a serious problem if Wikipedia insiders are allowed special privileges when it comes to articles about non-notable selves or their non-notable organisations. Mohsinpathania (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources are there that you claim that the nominator hasn't checked? The ones in the article seem to be pretty junky, and well below the standard demanded for sourcing of articles outside the Anglosphere, such as Alexander Solodukha (deletion discussion) or Crazy Eyes Crew (deletion discussion). There may be some history with the nominator that I'm unaware of but I see no reason why we can't discuss this nomination on its merits rather than assume bad faith on the part of the nominator. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources in the article are woefully inadequate for substantiating notability, being, at best, passing mentions of the subject in dubiously reliable sources, and my own searches, which include checking out the ones automatically linked by the nomination statement, find nothing in any reliable source with more than a passing mention of the subject. Please note that this invalidates the ridiculous claim above that this discussion is subject to WP:SKCRIT point 2, because I am an uninvolved editor (if you don't believe me check my contributions since my ISP last changed my IP address in December 2015) and have called for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I never claimed article is create by 'Carrite'. In actualment the creation and early edits for this article are by User:CDaniel and were "sourced" (if that is the right term) to this Internet trash article and the alleged owner of the business is "Timbo Chandler". CDaniels account (from his user page) appears to have a WP:COI with this article or alternatively with account User:Carrite which was opened later and whose first edit shows a remarkable familiarity of Wikipedia sintax. So who is the founder of this business Timbo Chandler or Timbo Davenport needs to be resolved in view of acuracy of encylcopedia. Thank you Mohsinpathania (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note CDaniels lists articles that he has created or contributed to on his user page, a common practice. This does not show that he has a COI with either this article or with Carrite. Carrite's first edit is of no relevant to this discussion. Please restrain yourself to discussion on whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP 120.56.118.252, I repeat "Please restrain yourself to discussion on whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines." Talk of first edits, and DUCKS, and BOOMERANGS is not doing that. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your plea to concentrate on discussion of whether the article is able to meet Wikipedia's article policies and guidelines, but that advice should be directed to all participants in this unseemly spat, on both "sides", not just 120.56.118.252. Nearly every comment above (apart from mine, of course) fails to assume good faith and to contentrate on the issue at hand. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft to someone who needs it if at all as my searches found nothing better and this could still need improvements but I'm not convincingly seeing how these can be made. SwisterTwister talk 22:02, 25 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} 12:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs work, but I believe the subject meets WP:GNG. Everything on Earth ends in "failure", i.e., death.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you believe make the subject meet WP:GNG? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Although this is currently troubled with votes, I still should note this currently still questionable for the needed improvements....regardless of any user troubles. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Punk labels. Sources are unreliable, especially internet forum posts and so on. Since this is an historical subject (1990s punk), if the label is/was notable, we should expect to read about it in several of the many books covering the topic. However, the only source I could find, "Punks: A Guide to an American Subculture", is conspicuous for not discussing it. The label's owner is mentioned only in one sentence, where he is quoted regarding the notability of a radio show/DJ. So in fact there seems to be a reliable source that indicates that it's not particularly notable! But that doesn't mean all the information must be discarded, and some of the sources could be used as citations for facts, if not for notability. A large proportion of the articles in the Category:Punk record labels have even less evidence of notability for dedicated articles, but it would be a mistake to simply delete them en masse. Taken together, they are a notable subject, and the articles contain much valuable information. I would suggest creating Punk labels at least as a stub, and doing a WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT in order to retain the existing information for possible merging into it. In general, I think WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT rather than WP:PROD or AfD, should be the first line approach to article subjects that don't meet notability criteria, but still have useful information. If there are problems with it being reverted, by COI editors for example, that can be dealt with by the usual COI or content dispute procedures. WP:PROD should be reserved for articles that are clearly completely useless, and a formal AfD for notability should only be considered if WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT is legitimately contentious. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Absolutely no sources have been provided in this discussion to prove the subject's notability; even though requests for that information were made over and over again. Instead those requesting the article's retention merely stated things like "I [see sources]"^paraphrasing, in response to such questions. This type of behavior is honestly not acceptable at AFD, so I'd like to remind everyone that sources must be provided by whomever is arguing for the retention of the article. This is not a vote.

Therefore, as the required notability was not established during the course of this month long discussion, the article's subject is found to not be suitable for inclusion at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Consuls-General of Australia in Mumbai[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. a related discussion is here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Consuls-General of Australia in Chengdu. the office of the consul general would fail WP:ORG (considering that even embassies are not granted inherent notability) so I don't see how a list of consuls general is notable. ~~Also nominating:~~

~~List of Consuls-General of Australia in Houston~~

LibStar (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG in my book. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please explain how. I see no significant coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES. please actually show sources. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you on 20 April to supply actual sources, your lack of response for over 2 weeks just demonstrates the subject has no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although it isn't specific, WP:ORG does not seem to suggest to me that all diplomatic positions are inherently notable and WP:NLIST suggests that the members of a list need to show a minimum amount of notability to be on it. I can believe that List of Australian High Commissioners to India is notable, as this is the highest status diplomatic representative between the countries, but I'm struggling to believe Consul-Gemerals are. Hence it seems to follow that members of the list are not either. I see very few independent secondary WP:RS that even mention the role, never mind suggest that it is worthy of note. JMWt (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the consul suggests notability. Clare. (talk) 09:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Clare.: where? I don't see any. Links would be appreciated. JMWt (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: There are links within the articles.Clare. (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are independent secondary sources as per WP:RS. Even if they were, the coverage within them is not significant. JMWt (talk) 10:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure both the country's most prominent broadsheet newspaper and premier financial newspaper would be surprised to learn that a Wikipedian thinks they're not an "independent secondary source", as would one of our national broadcasters. You're adopting some interesting definitions there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're looking at a different page to me, but I see three references. First two are press release from the AUS government, third is from DNA (Diligent Media Corporation Ltd). Please explain to me what you're talking about. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about the Houston page. I'm discussing the subject of this AfD, the Mumbai page. JMWt (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joint nomination of the Houston and Mumbai articles, you'd better do better than claiming the sources I mentioned aren't "independent secondary sources" unless you've decided to at least change to a keep on Houston. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about Houston, which should not be included in the AfD, I'm (correctly) discussing the named page in this AfD discussion. JMWt (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are both named in the AfD discussion, as the nomination makes very clear. If you're a keep vote on Houston, please make that clear. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with having joint AfDs like this. Hence I'm talking about the page which is actually under discussion and am not discussing the additional page, which should have its own AfD. The issues may indeed be different. I'm not making any statement at this stage about Houston. JMWt (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston page now has its own AfD. Let's stick to talking about one at a time. JMWt (talk) 11:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the proviso that it be moved to Australian Consulate-General, Mumbai. I have expressed on other pages for deletion discussions (with no response from the nominator as yet) that the case for deletion is easily removed by simply moving the page to a name that focuses on the consulate itself rather than the office-holders, and the content should reflect that also.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me the issue is still that there is a difference between being able to show that the job is notable and being able to show that a list of people who previously did that job are notable, even if in-and-of-themselves those people are not otherwise notable. That seems to me to be an admission that this list isn't notable and so moving it to another page so it can exist (probably without much other useful information) on a notable page. JMWt (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for better improvements overall. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as still questionable for better improvements overall. Thincat (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in searches to show that it passes WP:GNG, and nothing posited in this discussion to augment my searches. I understand Siegfried Nugent's point, but not sure that the consulate itself is notable, and there is no inherent notability for a consulate, if there is, please ping me with the appropriate guideline. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

84 Birthday Anniversary of His Majesty the King Sport Club[edit]

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

Non-notable stadium. No refs to be found. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search terms:

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

Comment: There are numerous hits in Thai, a language I don't speak. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always puzzled by editors saying they don't speak a foreign language. The Google Chrome browser translates these articles effortlessly, and if you won't use Chrome, you can simply paste links into Google Translate's web page. I have found some refs, so it's erroneous to say they don't exist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find proper refs, but if you can, let's see them please! I have the sense that the notability on this article is a bit forced by the use of the King's name, in the sense that he is revered there. In Thailand you can go to prison for saying even the most trivial critical thing about the King.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the onus is on you as a nominator to do your WP:BEFORE work before bringing this here. Now, if you click on the Thai "news" link directly above, you can see that for example the second one, a March 26 story is a news article about the stadium's opening. Again, you need to use Google to translate, via Chrome or their webpage. You'd have to click on more of the links to see what they are, or if as a whole they would meet WP:GNG or not. Again, it's not up to me or any other editor to do this groundwork for you, sorry. I am casting no !vote, myself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I understand what you are saying. I did my WP:BEFORE in English, the language of this Wiki. I'd argue that WP:BEFORE does not extend to a search in other languages, especially ones I do not speak. I also don't know the Thai publications well enough to see if it is a reliable source or not, and Google translate is not going to help with that. What is "manager.co.th"... I guess I could go and transalte their about page and cdo a search on their background. Or not. There's an interesting essential question here about whether something has to be notable in English to be on the English wiki, to which I know the answer but do not necessarily agree. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Okay, fair enough. I don't agree, but well-stated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm going to get off the fence. 1) the nomination rationale is faulty, there are refs that are translatable easily via Google 2) as discussed above, we do not require that sources be available in English as a condition for inclusion in the English Wikipedia and WP:Systemic bias is an important consideration. So keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shawn in Montreal, I'm dying to hear what the Systemic Bias is here! If you're going to claim it, please explain. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? We're still on this? You're rejecting non-English refs, out of policy, for a stadium in a non-English part of the world. Because you can't read it. And apparently, can't be arsed to look at the them via a browser with auto-translate or Google Translate. And so therefore, any reference on any topic outside the anglosphere that doesn't have a ref in English, we're to discount. And for all I know, you're so ignorant you only speak one language, so that would discount a lot. If you don't understand why that's systemic bias, I can't help you. No one can. Go away. Don't ping me again. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal, nothing you say above is correct, it is all based on your assumption that I'm a unilingual white person with no knowledge of Thai or Thailand, which is incorrect. You can't claim systematic bias as you relaly have no idea of my race, linguisitic abilities or anything else. You also need to learn some manners. Maybe you should think before you speak. Happy editing! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you had to ping me again even tho I'd asked you not to cause you wanted to get in the last word? Okay, here's mine: weeks after you started with this Afd, without the necessary WP:BEFORE work, without actually knowing if there were any Thai reliable sources for a stadium in, um, Thailand... you still don't know. You still haven't bothered look for one? You'd rather wikilawyer WP:Systemic bias and ask me to explain how your own above-stated disregard of non-English references fits into that. Whatever. I've clicked again on alternative source for Thia language news refs above -- which is apparently more than you've ever done. I found this and this, which Google Chrome translated automatically, and in which the stadium's construction is the primary focus of news articles. But hey, ping me again, make arguing with me the focus. Or you could do your job per WP:BEFORE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Draft instead as there's nothing actually suggesting the notability improvements, so Draft until someone can improve this. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, "there's nothing actually suggesting the notability improvements," aside from being scarcely English, is, if I understand the intended meaning correctly, patently false. The Thai language ref I linked to above, does "suggest the notability improvements," to borrow the tangled phrase. And there are others. I can only marvel at the satisfaction one must get in copypasting the same cookie cutter delete rationale, over and over, at Afd. It must be a rewarding intellectual exercise. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of availability of sources shown above , article needs expanding. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 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 21:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged from this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:30, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qyaram Sloyan[edit]

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

The article is about a non-notable Armenian soldier who happens to be one of dozens who fell in the 2016 Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes. In addition, the article is heavily one-sided and relies exclusively on Armenian sources which lay quite serious war crime claims yet to be assessed by independent bodies. Finally, the author seems to be guided by his own POV and suggests himself that the purpose of creating the article was to make a tribute to a dead soldier, which is in violation of WP:SOAP. Parishan (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER CerealKillerYum (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOLDIER is intended for notability regarding military careers, and so is not applicable here. It is the manner of the treatment of his body after death that has made the subject here notable in media sources. Murder of Lee Rigby would also fail WP:SOLDIER. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kyaram Sloyan is one of the most notable persons of 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes, his decapitation became an important topic for the world media including The Sunday Times [6], Regnum [7], EKurd Daily [8], Agos [9], RFE/RL Armenia [10] and many others. His death was reported by the Ombudsman of NKR as a grave breache of customary international law on European Ombudsman Institute Official site [11]. Slayan was posthumously awarded by the Medal "For Service in Battle". OptimusView (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per media coverage referenced by OptimusView. SJK (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly the subject has had plenty of media attention. also per WP:GNG. I also note that reasons such as POV issues are not reasons for deletion, all of that can be fixed via edits and/or discussion at the articles talk page.BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per CerealKillerYum does not quaify the WP:SOLDIER Abbatai 12:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per media coverage referenced by OptimusView.--Spetsnaz1991 (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect instead perhaps to 2016 Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes as this is closely linked best and is likely best known because of that, nothing else from there to suggest a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC notability guidelines. The article is well sourced with about 20 sources. Sloyan receives at least 5,000 search results on Google, and that's merely in English. Can't see why it should be deleted. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

80% of those sources are Armenian media, in addition to Regnum known for its partisan coverage of the conflict (evident from its atrocious claims like "Aliyev awarded the soldier who most likely posed with Sloyan's severed head"). Parishan (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the notion of "those sources are Armenian media", sources do not have to be in English. See WP:GNG, where it states, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes. Not notable enough for a stand alone article. ≥Grandmaster 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very much notable though, warrants no deletion. Besides, there's way too much information here for it to be merged. A stand alone article is necessary to provide a more elaborate and extensive coverage of all these sources and details. Beheaded? Quite a notable ISIS-like case.92slim (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his decapitation was widely reported in Armenia and has already been raised on the international stage by Armenia. --Երևանցի ^talk 08:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable person. Neutrality is also violated in the article. The information about beheading is false according to Azerbaijani officials[12]. But in the article it is claimed as a fact. --Interfase (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so even the Azerbaijani officials issued a statement related to him, and you still claim he is not notable? OptimusView (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the issue is related not only to him, but all bodies including him. Of course this does not make him notable. He is just ordinary Armenian soldier whose death Armanian propaganda uses to accuse Azerbaijan. --Interfase (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interfase, if your not a notable person opinion here is to be considered sincere, how do you explain your subsequent creation of Murad Mirzayev? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very simple. Mirzayev clarifies WP:MILPEOPLE as he was awarded his nation's highest award for valour. Murad Mirzayev is National Hero of Azerbaijan, but Sloyan doesn't have such award. --Interfase (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM or delete. There are dozens of such examples throughout history and outlining one of them just because of media coverage is not particularly fair. Being beheaded after death does not automatically confer notability and the bar would be set really low otherwise. Brandmeister^talk 16:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is still plenty of POV and IDONTLIKEIT reasoning above. Which are not really reasons for deletion. Matters that can be fixed or simply, I want it deleted because I dont like it are just kind of pointless.BabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / question There are plenty of sources indicating notability. I do not see legitimate arguments for deletion being made in the AfD proposal - it consists of just content related issues. But I think the question about whether the subject deserves a separate article needs answering. Is there any content in the article that could not be merged into the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The extensive amount of coverage on Sloyan alone should be enough to merit his own article. We must also keep in mind that due to its controversy, it is necessary to have a stand-alone article to provide as much context as possible. There's a lot of commentary as well; this incident has been lifted to not only mainstream media, but notable politicians as well. These are all significant viewpoints that are impossible to ignore. The stand-alone option appears to be the only reasonable solution here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see why his notability should warrant such a coverage. Also oppose to merge: Any relevant info is already in main article about the clash, so it is not as if he did not earn any mention. This kind of article does nothing to create a friendly atmosphere.Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the admins If we are to draw a hierarchical tree starting with the central page 2016_ Armenian-Azerbaijani_clashes (the context under which Sloyan became known) we see the obvious problem with this article. Sloyan is included in a section titled: Alleged atrocities by Azerbaijan. Notice that the stability of the article was achieved only by mentioning him inside that section (he does not even have a section). At no time a page on any sections of the article (which are all above Sloyan on the hierarchical tree) was created. This is anomalous enough to warrant a deletion, unless Wikipedia is a democracy (I hope not).Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a decision made partly due to EtienneDolet points that not all of the content is suitable for merging. In addition, given that atrocities like this are defined by international law as not being legitimate actions allowable during conflict, and that the aftermath of this particular incident looks like extending beyond the conflict itself, there is a justifiable case for dealing with it in more detail outside of the 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes article. As has already been pointed out by myself and others, the arguments for deletion made in the AfD proposal are not valid; they consists of content related issues not deletion reasons. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes notability WP:BIO by being well cited by several independent sources. --Oatitonimly (talk) 15:28, 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 merge to Afe Babalola University. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afe Babalola University Faculty of Sciences[edit]

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

A sister article just got deleted. see here. + Article's topic is not significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia. Darreg (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Darreg (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all to suggest the needed solidity for its own article, only a part of the notable university itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is too soon to have its own article. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Afe Babalola University. ~Kvng (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article Afe Babalola University. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 09:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent article Afe Babalola University. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me)
Merge with Afe Babalola University DeVerm (talk) 20:59, 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 22:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Davis (community leader)[edit]

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a community activist, whose strongest claim of encyclopedic notability is his status as an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL -- if you cannot demonstrate and source a credible reason why he would already have qualified for a Wikipedia article before becoming a candidate, then he does not become eligible for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. But there are just two references here, and both of them just namecheck his existence rather than being about him -- which means that nothing here constitutes a compelling claim of preexisting notability, and the sourcing provided does not pass WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only questionable for the applicable notability, there's nothing else convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to prior notability under WP:GNG, fails WP:NPOL
Delete - terribly sourced or unsourced BLP, which requires too much work to fix. Please ping me if you can fix rescue this mess (the article, not the subject, who appears to be an honorable person). Bearian (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quietly (company)[edit]

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

Not notable. Only evidence of notability is being "featured" in prominent publications, but the sources aren't at all substantial. The Forbes article mentions Quietly once as one of "dozens of startups". The TechVibes article is kind of substantial but not enough to indicate notability on its own. The Vancouver Sun link doesn't work so I don't know about that. The other accolades are not quite getting a Fast 50 award and being featured on "advertise your product" websites. IagoQnsi (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for flagging this IagoQnsi. Appreciate you taking the time to review the content. I will update the links for the Vancouver Sun. PostMedia Newspapers have updated their linking/taxonomy which is why that link isn't working. I will also add some links from other reputable (i.e. news) sources to address your "unsibstantial" comment. Lastly, I will find a link to the Deloitte list that contains Quietly since that is indeed a legitimate and notable nomination. Agree with your comments re: "advertise your product" websites. We can edit that as well so it's more objectively positioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONAOVA (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a somewhat newly started company with nothing else convincing for the applicable notability, current coverage is also questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just an ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any notable references for the company.Account2235 (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is an ad and the "We can edit that [...]" comment above shows "they" are putting themselves on wikipedia. DeVerm (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy-based "not a directory" arguments are not adequately addressed by the "keep" opinions. Sandstein 08:10, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus lines in Kolkata[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY – Wikipedia is not a directory. This is just a long list of different bus lines. There are no sources whatsoever, making it nearly impossible to know what is true and what is not. Amccann421 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's definitely a case to be made against having lists of public transport bus routes, but I'm agnostic on this general matter. There seem to be quite a few though. I'm willing to change my mind if someone comes up with a cogent argument why we should delete this article while keeping Lists of bus routes in New York City, List of bus routes in London and all the rest. Uanfala (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Other stuff exists is not a good argument at AfD.Charles (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this would be brought up. The rationale behind WP:Other stuff exists, as I understand it, is that articles should be judged on their own merits: there are other articles like this one, and each of them can be challenged on its own and deleted. I agree with that, but we all know List of bus routes in London isn't going to get deleted, even though WP:NOTDIR applies to it in equal measure. It's not a bad thing to keep in mind the big picture and as the essay you link to itself says "other stuff exists arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know that List of bus routes in London is not going to be deleted at some point.Charles (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London list is basically a list of entries in the Category:Bus routes in London which hence fits standalone criteria. Here there are no standalone articles on each routes that needs to be clubbed in a list form. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When looking at if a public transportation system should be kept, I tend to look at the size of the city. It has over 4 million people, so in my opinion this is a keep. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the concern about this article, as it needs a lot of maintenance to prevent is from becoming a long list of very detailed bus routes. The Banner talk 18:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There can be arguments on the "lists of things" line but there simply does not exist a page of this nature on the Internet despite it being a city of more than 10 million (I am from this city). This has been only made possible by the "user contributed" nature of Wikipedia where users probably spotted the bus routes and added. Although this might not be the ideal way to do it, but this has really become a useful page for public knowledge and use. So I prefer Keeping it and may be contacting different agencies (a Himalayan task given nature of working of the bureaucracy) to verify sources of information in the coming days.

Source of information: Regarding the lists of things, I cannot give more argument as people are tending toward a question of taste rather than the usefulness of the information. However, I have made a little progress with respect to the sources for bus lines run by the Calcutta State Tranport Corporation. Please check if this type of sourcing is adequate and comment. CSTC non-ac bus routes ^[1] CSTC AC bus routes ^[2] CTC Bus routes ^[3]

Also please consider that there are many Regional/State Transport Authority (STA/RTA) that issue permits for these lines which might not have an online presence-for those cases, if we have emails/ snail mails from those authorities confirming the route details, will that do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devpro1981 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Devpro1981 (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)DevPro1981[reply]

You seem to be saying that Wikipedia should a vehicle for original research. As things stand it is not.Charles (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

H: They seem to be rather saying that the article is OR in its present form. Uanfala (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Also the page contains lists of all bus lines which covers districts other than Kolkata. This makes the details unnecessarily long and detailed. We can consider separate pages for bus routes for different districts by spinning off from this page.

Devpro1981 (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Devpro1981[reply]

- I've struck this second "keep" as duplicative of your comment above. You can add further comments to the discussion, but not additional !votes. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I can totally understand what Amccann421 is complaining about. I was shocked to see that the list is PC protected for "additional of unsourced/poorly sourced content" when nothing there is sourced. However, I think we should hang on to it. If nothing else, it'll give someone (like me) a starting point when they try to rewrite the article. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I no longer hold to the position which I did earlier, though it is not because my reasoning has been refuted. I leave it there for you to look at and consider. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:OR.Charles (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent references have been provided for the list or for information about routes. The routes don't link to any articles. Similar lists have been deleted. Bus services in large cities are likely to be more notable but evidence is still needed for that notability. 82.132.186.32 (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources which have been inserted above are just the transport company websites, primary sources. That is where the public should go to find travel information, not a Wiki article which is likely to be outdated. Wikipedia articles should not depend wholly or mainly on primary sources. Significant secondary coverage is required to establish notability.Charles (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion on the sourcing. What are your thoughts on the possible online unavailability of the information? In that case, the public will not have any site to find information on the routes run by those transport authorities. Another point is, the bus routes don't get changed very often^[4]. So we can keep the content of the article as it is for the time being, possibly reformatting/refactoring for better readability; working simultaneously to reach out to the RTAs/STAs to gather authentic details of the routes. Also I wonder, how the content in its present form came into being (may we hear from the major contributor(s) to this article?) as this is most accurate and up to date than any other content available for this topic by doing a Google search ("kolkata bus routes").^[5]^[6] Devpro1981 (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)Devpro1981[reply]

What part of WP:NOTGUIDE or WP:NOTTRAVEL do you not understand?Charles (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Bus routes (unlike railway lines) are liable to be changed at frequent intervals. Accordingly the article needs regular maintenance, which WP cannot guarantee. The appropriate place to look is on a website maintained by the operators or the licensing authority, who will be paid to keep it up to date, or at least have an incentive to do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you are referring to is the ideal situation and will probably happen someday; but being a resident of the city, I can tell that no such initiative to update the web sites by the different licensing authorities (other than the reference links already collected) are taking place and there is no news of such things in the foreseeable future. So my point is, why delete a good compilation of information that is more factually correct than any other such compilation on the web and the possibility of change (refer supporting link) for this city is not very high.Devpro1981 (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Devpro1981[reply]

Delete per Charlesdrakew and Peterkingiron. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment above and NOTDIR, NOTTRAVELGUIDE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above as well as per NOTDIR, NOTTRAVEL - All this crap belongs on a bus enthusiast website .... not an eneyclopedia!. –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://cstc.org.in/web_nonac_rt.php
^ http://cstc.org.in/web_ac_rt.php
^ http://www.calcuttatramways.com/bus-route-search/
^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/First-bus-route-rejig-in-four-decades/articleshow/44778362.cms
^ http://www.calcuttayellowpages.com/busroute.html
^ https://www.calcuttaweb.com/travel/bus-routes/

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

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

The result was Deleted as I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Lev-Twombly[edit]

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

Page is about me. No useful information. I prefer not to be listed on Wikipedia. Please honor my request to be removed. SecondaryVestibule (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Outside the request in the nomination, the article does not show how the subject meets WP:GNG]. No sources either to verify their notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: We are not WP:LINKEDIN, so no need not to honor the request. A self-request should be given some credence in borderline cases, but this is not even that. Just a competent professional.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I myself would've likely found this in the past or soon considering I'm always searching for questionable articles, nothing actually convincing of notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3, blatant vandalism. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chode Rosemary Hall[edit]

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

duplicates Choate Rosemary Hall. The method used to duplicate the article is a simple change of choate to chode. See this. Daniel kenneth (talk) 17:22, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 13:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aapne toh chhie Bindaas[edit]

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

An upcoming film possibly failed WP:NOTFILM. I don't see the film received significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator As per given reasons below it's clear that this should be kept. Thank You – GSS (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

in Gujarati:(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)

WP:INDAFD: Aapne Toh Chhie Bindaas Nishant Dave

Am going suggest a keep, as filming is confirmed and the project is getting coverage... at least in the Gujarati language, even if not in English. Looks like WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this at least has a set date and there's enough information and sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Trosko[edit]

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

Resume-style listing of jobs this voice actor had. Complete lack of secondary sources discussing the subject. Hits for him in the usual places like Funimation and ANN only mention him (and this ANN page merely copies what Funimation had already blogged), but there is nothing to suggest notability via the GNG. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. for (;;) (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. for (;;) (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources can be found for this WP:BLP and also fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lead roles in major anime shows. Fairy Tail Zero looks like the only show where he has a starring role, but that production itself isn't that notable in the anime world. Only 2 anime conventions [13] back in 2010–11. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, still questionable for better notability improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanhaiya Kumar[edit]

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

Not notable. Just became popular due to some controversy and article is created by his supporters. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 16:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the news, so, notable. And "created by his supporters" - so? As long as the article is neutral, it's irrelevant who created it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has become popular due to a controversy he has created, so he is all over the news. It doesn't make him notable. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 02:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's check WP:NOTABILITY - ah, from the intro alone: "over a period of time." Well, let's await other opinions. And let's see how notable he is over a year. NB: I'm neither pro nor contra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no point wasting time with an AfD. If the nom bothers to state how it fails the AfD criteria, then we might do. Otherwise, throw it out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best perhaps as the article is still questionable for the applicable notability despite the listed details and such. There's currently nothing else to confidently convince keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SwisterTwister, there are 55 references in the article, many of which give very detailed coverage to this individual. Now that does not rule out a merge (I believe a merger is inappropriate, for different reasons; see below) but how can you say that there is no evidence for notability? Those sources deserve a look, at the very least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject actually clearly passes WP:BASIC quite comfortably. For starters, just read some of the news articles present in the article; significant coverage in major news and media sources, including BBC, The Economic Times, The Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and many others. The nomination asserts non-notability, but provides no guideline or policy based rationale to back up the assertion. See also: WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I accept that the person has so much coverage in the national and international but media, but that's because of a controversy he has created. He has been charged criminally claiming that Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi students conducted a program hailing Afzal Guru (a terrorist who have bombed Indian Parliament in 2001. See:2001 Indian Parliament attack) as a martyr and national hero under his supervision. He is the student union leader. So the some of the students revolted against the arrest and this became a big issue throughout he country and so the coverage was more. So there is nothing important or notable about him. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 04:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2016 JNU sedition controversy. Case of WP:RECENTISM. All coverage only related to the JNU incident. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Indeed, as all the notability is related to a single recent incident and consequent media converage specific to this incident, it is more than enough to note this person's role in the controversy related article, 2016 JNU sedition controversy. In my view, the existing article illustrates how a notable man suddenly emerged out of a single political controversy, naturally got supported by his existing supporters and by opportunistic political rhetoric; then became a notable orator with a political speech and how he carries on to wage notable strikes and makes controversial statements... -- zixtor 12:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zixtor (talk • contribs)

Keep This article has been nominated for AFD before citing single event criteria. But now he has been covered for multiple events. He is meeting various opposition leaders and is being covered in contexts other than JNU controversy. He clearly meets GNG. ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He meets the basic GNG because of having many sources to his name and news coverage, but as a person he is not notable. As you have mentioned meeting various opposition leaders and coverage in other contexts are also due to the controversy he has been involved in. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 00:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Nominator may please understand the difference between 'notability as per Wikipedia standards' and 'disapproval by the mainstream'. The subsequent comments from the Nominator border on POV.ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2016 JNU sedition controversy. The person independently has no notability. The incident does. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that Kumar's notability is centered around the JNU arrest incident, he has been covered extensively in the media and the article describes a few incidents (attacks on Kumar) and controversies (statements on rape) that cannot be covered in the 2016 JNU sedition controversy article. Like him or not, it appears his notability is here to stay. --regentspark (comment) 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Northamerica1000 and others. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 02:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark and Northamerica1000: The few incidences of attack on him or threats of death are related to JNU thing and they can at best be written in few lines there itself. If other incidences of (a) Kashmiri women's rapes and (b) threatening of a female student are the only points outside the JNU incident that you claim to still make him notable then please note that per WP:CRIMINAL we won't have a standalone article about a person who has made allegations of wrong doings by army and hence a case has been filed on him that is undecided or of a person who allegedly urinated in public and abused and threated a fellow student where the university has taken actions. He fails WP:CRIMINAL here and his only coverage is due to the JNU incident. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Khalid and Shehla Rashid Shora seem to be birds of same flock who no notability outside JNU thing. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DD, I agree that his notability arises from the JNU incident. But, it now seems to extend beyond the incident itself. A quick search shows that he is being labeled an intellectual terrorist and being invited to give talks. The philosophical underpinnings of notability are that readers will be searching for information on the person well beyond the incident that made them notable and, I think, that is almost certainly the case here. --regentspark (comment) 13:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As @Northamerica1000: correctly points out, this articles subject more than meets WP:Basic. I understand, too, @Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: saying this articles subject may have created the controversy that made him notable. However, not only have I failed to find any WP policies/guidelines saying this would make someone non-notable, I've found the exact opposite showing that an articles subjects actions are, indeed, what makes them notable in the first place. (e.g. Edward Snowden). As to if this article should be merged, I'd need more guidance from others more familier Wikipedia:Points to note while debating in WikiProject India related AFDs such as @MichaelQSchmidt: and @Nvvchar:. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dharmadhyaksha. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person has been in the Indian National News for some time with issues that are very relevant.--Vinayaraj (talk) 08:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2016 JNU sedition controversy. Not notable outside that JANU subject. Capitals00 (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article as it definitely meets the level of independent significant reliable coverage required by WP:GNG. The article has over 50 sources and the vast majority of them are reliable. [14][15][16][17]. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As far as I can make out, the rationale for the AfD is that the notability is from one-event. But the nom misses the point that this event has turned Kumar into a national level student leader, who is receiving talk invitations from all over the country [18] and abroad [19]. He has "captured the imagination of the nation," according to The Times of India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essentially per NorthAmerica. The sources provided by them (many of which are already in the article) demonstrate that the subject comfortably passes WP:BASIC. Although the genesis of the coverage might have been the JNU incident, there is clearly coverage that is not directly relevant to the JNU incident; see [20], [21], [22], and [23]. This coverage relates to his position as a significant individual in student politics, and thus a merge is inappropriate. Additionally, I found a few sources giving him non-trivial coverage well before the JNU incident; see [24], [25], [26]. These would be insufficient for an article by themselves, but combined with the sources provided here, show that WP:BLP1E is completely inapplicable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barzani Balance[edit]

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

Completely unreadable text. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The version nominated was indeed unreadable, but that was because it had been vandalised. I have reverted to the last intelligible version, but I still agree with deletion, because what is described seems simplistic to the point of being trivial, and because I can find no sources which are not either obvious WP mirrors, or about something quite different. This seems like something made up one day in school, but anyway it fails WP:V and WP:N. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all notable, clearly nothing yet acceptable and somehow imaginably close the subject or something similar I imagine. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 14 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Plawecki[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer. None of the sources in the article show significant independent coverage and my search found nothing to show he meets WP:GNG. His accomplishments as a kickboxer do not meet WP:NKICK. Mdtemp (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet either WP:NKICK or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Benhur Mahesh Dutt Ekka[edit]

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

Mid-level bureaucrat, no significant coverage, anything available (within or outside of the article) is just of the bureaucrat postings and transfers notifications from the relevant govt department. Doesn't meet any of our SNGs either —SpacemanSpiff 15:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 15:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 15:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this Article is a pure Dependanat article on "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swathi_Lakra" , So , it depends on the consensus of the that particluar article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramsinghdeena (talk • contribs) 09:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. So no, if he doesn't get over one of our notability standards on his own steam, then the fact of being married to someone else who might qualify for a Wikipedia article does not give him an automatic exemption from those standards. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting better for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable source coverage shown at all — even the one source which actually constitutes real media coverage fails to even verify the claim being cited to it, as it doesn't actually mention his name at all. It supports the claim that his wife happens to hold a particular position, but fails to even verify the claim that he's married to her. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 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 as a week is suggesting Keep (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Cleveland Cavaliers[edit]

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

Redundancy - basically a word for word rehash of the main Cleveland Cavaliers article. Vjmlhds 15:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Opposed It is currently redundant because Cleveland Cavaliers#Team history needs trimmed down. It currently has 14 subheadings just for that section. It should be far more of a summary than what is currently there, with a few subheadings, if any, and a limited number of paragraphs. Most of the year-by-year details that are added to Cleveland Cavaliers every year should be added to the history article instead and better summarized on the main article.

Strong Keep per above. This article was created as a way to trim the the team history section of the Cleveland Cavaliers page. Frank Anchor^Talk 15:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nothing here for AfD to consider. This is a content-distribution issue. The existence of Category:National Basketball Association history by team suggests having this article is a good idea.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Second Milowent. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this -- I agree with the last two contributors. The history section in the team article is rather long. This is a case where forking (with a main template) is appropriate. The action needed is to prune the history section of the team article down to a single paragraph, with a link to what we are discussing here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eminently appropriate POV Fork.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Kanji#Readings. Sandstein 08:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanji homograph[edit]

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

A fork of Kanji#Readings, i.e. that article covers it already very well in context. This is a much worse rendering of a little of that content, without the history or wider context, just some examples without any indication of how they arose. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless redirecting is actually needed as the other Kanji#Readings section seems to suffice. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanji#Readings. –Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:55, 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 SK1 - Clearly wasting my fucking time so fuck it wrapping up as Keep, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie Raia[edit]

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

Non notable singer/songwriter, Article was deleted in 2014 and 2015 due to notability concerns and I'm not seeing anything different now - Fails NMUSIC 7 GNG,

I originally CSD'd but as Jax 0677 suggested redirect (which I personally think is pointless) I'm sending the article here so gain a better discussion, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with your comments, Davey2010. I did check out the deletion history before creating this page. It was last attempted to create in August 2015, and yes, at that point the person in question was not notable, I agree. However, if you look at the sources now, which are notably published post-August 2015 (and mostly in 2016), they talk substantially about her. For example, there's a semi-detailed bio on the iTunes bio page here, followed by a list of her songs. Next, a pretty detailed feature about the person has been covered on the third-party, quite reliable source of Vice magazine here; published in March 2016. Also, the chart history of one of the singer's songs on Billboard here, which I believe, satisfies WP:BAND pt. 2 (~~Kanye collaborating with Desiigner?~~); published in March 2016. Next, she is one of the opening acts in the upcoming tour of another popular singer and has been covered widely here and here; published in March 2016. Speculative, right? I know, but can this be considered? Next, Rolling Stone included her in a list of upcoming hot artists to watch out for here; published in March 2016. Basis of all these sources, which were all published after the article on the said personality was attempted for creation, makes me believe that this article should stay. The link rot issue can be tackled in minutes later. Please consider this. Thanks, Nairspecht Converse 14:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have basically compared the availability of sources above, between the last time the article was created and now. Moving forward, about the notability, it is covered in some reliable and verifiable third-party sources and does look notable. Also, searching on search engines for the said personalities throws up high quality links. Please consider keeping the article. Best, Nairspecht Converse 16:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The link rot issue has now been solved. However, I make no comment is to whether this article should stay or go. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Derek R Bullamore Much appreciated, mate. Nairspecht Converse 16:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - The article now contains a few reliable sources. If it cannot be kept, it can be redirected to ~~Freddy_Wexler#Songs_by_Freddy_Wexler_.5B13.5D~~ Freddy_Wexler#Songs_by_Freddy_Wexler. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense to me, dear Jax 0677. Nairspecht Converse 16:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Nairspecht:, Moxie Raia's name is listed in that section. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Perhaps she wasn't notable before, but she's crossed over since. In 2011 I remember Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Grammer wasn't a slam dunk, now I can't avoid that song Honey, I'm Good. any harder.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever happened in previous AfDs, she crosses the line of notability based on the reliable and verifiable sources provided. Alansohn (talk) 23:27, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. Merging discussion is found at Talk:24 (2016 film)#Merging of 24 (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

24 (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Sound Track of a general movie as other movies in Indian film industry is not notable to create to new article for the soundtracks. They can just be merges to the Movie's article section. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 14:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Merging the soundtrack with the main article will bloat it, and the soundtrack image would violate WP:NFCC. Kailash29792 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the parent article. —Vensatry _(Talk) 05:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the article is the process of expansion. As the film has released, there is substantial scope of further development. Forget about the deletion, any detailed sourced information cannot be removed. Your claim "Sound Track of a general movie as other movies in Indian film industry is not notable to create to new article for the soundtracks. They can just be mentioned in the Movie's article section." seems to be just a personal view– word(s) "general movie". For more see notability of articles Arjann (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Speedy Keep - User has withdrawn deletion nom - Krishna Chaitanya Velaga, you have only 2500 edits to your name, so it's unclear to me whether with or not you are familiar with Wikipedia's notability criteria. If you are familiar with the notability criteria, I'd like to hear a specific argument for why you think the article does not satisfy WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG, since we need something beefier than your personal assertion that the soundtrack is not notable. If you are proposing that the content be merged, you probably should have taken a look at WP:MERGE and followed those steps instead of proposing deletion. Looking forward to your response, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it doesn't meet the notability criteria because of the the following reasons:

It is not a top album that is listed in country's musical charts
The recording has not been certified gold in any country.
The album has neither won nor nominated for any notable awards in
It is not a important subject of national broadcast or similar ones

There are sources but having sources alone doesn't make it notable. According to point 5 in the notability guidelines, if it is only a part of a notable film then it should merged with the parent article. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 04:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other criteria? The subject only has to meet one criterion to pass the test. What about 1? Has it been the subject of significant discussion by reliable sources? Does it meet criterion 5? If it does, isn't the article too long to comfortably fit in the main 24 article? We're not talking about a stub here or a raw track list. Further, I'm unclear about your goal. You recently [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=24_(soundtrack)&diff=next&oldid=719444139 slapped a merge template on the article, but didn't start a discussion about the merge. Are you withdrawing the deletion nomination? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I prefer to merge the article with the film's (24 (2016 film)) rather than deletion. I withdraw the deletion nomination with preference to merge it.KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 07:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the merge discussion at Talk:24_(2016_film)#Merging_of_24_.28soundtrack.29KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 00:02, 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. joe decker ^talk 00:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mankada Azeez Moulavi[edit]

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

I can't find enough independent coverage. - ArtsRescuer • Talk me 13:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing else better and the article contains nothing else convincing....Not to mention it's unsourced! Notifying DGG for his familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone decision untilit can be looked at by someone familiar with the relevant language and able to look for sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 13 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} 13:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending evidence of significant coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG: insufficient reliable, third-party verifiable sources to indicate notability. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found the obituary: KNM president passes away in The Hindu. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's all I can find so delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Content copied from the link: http://mankadaazeezmoulavi.blogspot.in/ @User:RHaworth • Arts Rescuer 18:50, 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 keep. Consensus appears to be that Cziko's published works satisfy the requirements at WP:PROF#C1. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 15:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Cziko[edit]

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

Notability was questioned over two years ago, and since then no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability has been produced. In December 2015 I proposed deletion, but the proposal was contested by an editor who said "possibly notable" (my emphasis). I decided to wait to see whether evidence to support that suggestion could be found, but five months later there has been nothing new. At most one of the references could possibly be considered substantial coverage of a book by Cziko, and even that is not substantial coverage of Cziko himself. The other references are a listing in a library catalogue of a book by him, a page briefly mentioning him in one sentence and referencing a work of his, an online copy of a book by him, and a very brief profile page for him on the web site of the university where he works. Not a single one of those is substantial coverage of him in an independent source. My own searches have found various brief mentions, a few reviews of his books, and so on, but no substantial coverage of the man. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep By what critera and/or WP policy a noted professor emeritus[27] at a major American university whose books are published[28] by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, whose presentations are given at other learning institutions around the world[29], and whose works and research are significant, interesting, and unusual ended up here eludes me, but would appreciate knowing as I might be missing something. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria and/or WP policy lead to this nomination are explained above. If you can say specifically what about the explanation needs clarifying, I can try to help. I see no evidence anywhere that he is a professor emeritus: certainly the page you link to doesn't say so, it just says he is a professor. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology publishes many books by many academics, not all of whom satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Many academics sometimes give talks in places other than where they are based, not only those who satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You say that his research is "significant, interesting, and unusual", but you don't actually provide any explanation as to why or how his work satisfies the notability guideline: merely stating that it does without any explanation or justification will be likely to carry little weight. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JamesBWatson: You state that "I see no evidence anywhere that he is a professor emeritus", yet a simple Google search shows many examples of this being true.[30][31] As an academic myself for many decades, I can, also, absolutely assure you that the gauntlet[32] that has to be endured before MIT publishes anything is in itself notable. As for my listing here his research that WP, not me, refers to as "significant, interesting, and unusual" is self evident in even the most minimal research into this persons life, research and academic articles. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no indication of notability in the article or its references. Being a professor and writing a couple of books are not sufficient indications of notability. Aside from there being no indication he is a professor emeritus, being an "emeritus" professor does not indicate notability – it merely indicates retirement (see Emeritus, and also since his faculty profile page says he's in his 50s, he seems too young to be retired, so it's highly unlikely that he's a professor emeritus). What we would need are reliable sources saying his work is especially important and influential, major awards being given to him by some esteemed institutions, etc. We have none of that. The article fails WP:PROF. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The article now seems to cite two different faculty profile pages – this one and this one, the latter of which confirms the emeritus status. (The two profiles have similar-looking URLs but rather different content.) Also, I noticed that on the page that says "Now in my 50s" also says "last updated 2006.03.27", so I suppose he his now in his 60s. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note (Attn: @JamesBWatson: I've rewritten this entire article adding references/citations/sections and would appreciate your review of same. Please note too, and forgive, my failing to invoke certain references as I've recently failed at this before and is, most likely, due to my failing eyesight that isn't catching what exactly I'm doing wrong. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note There are, litterally, hundreds[33] of academic and research papers written by this articles subject relating to the field of Perceptual control theory (and citied by to many to count other researchers) leaving me unsure how many of them to include, and in what context, and could use some guidance on. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need are citations to independent sources that are reliable that discuss Cziko and do so in substantial detail and indicate that he is notable in some clearly identified way. Please see WP:N and WP:PROF. Currently, the only source that I see that is cited in the article that is not obviously self-published by Cziko himself is a citation to http://www.pctweb.org. That also appears to be a self-published and unreliable source. It is not a formal publication or peer-reviewed journal from any identified institution. Indeed, that site does not even appear to identify who published its content. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hi @BarrelProof: Could you please expand on your allegation that this reference[34] is a self-published source, and as you've noted in this article? The facts prove that this is one of the main academic websites relating to Perceptual Control Theory and states about itself[35] that it is maintained by Dr. Warren Mansell, PhD, University of Oxford[36], and not this articles subject. I believe in any AfD the information presented should be as accuarately stated as possible. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I had not noticed that the web site does have an identification of who publishes it, the identification of the publisher confirms that it is the personal publication of an individual. It may not be published by Cziko himself, but it is published by an individual person and thus is the equivalent of a personal blog. As I said above, "It is not a formal publication or peer-reviewed journal from any identified institution." A more reliable source would be something like a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal or a well-regarded textbook. (Just to clarify, Mansell appears to be a Reader in Clinical Psychology at the University of Manchester, not the University of Oxford.) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi @BarrelProof:. Thank you for that concise explanation, now it makes sense to me. I agree with you, too, that a more reliable source would be something like a well-regarded peer-reviewed journal, and if you'd be so kind, here[37] are hundreds of them I'd most graciously appreciate your reviewing, and once finding those acceptable let me know so that I can include them in this article too. Also, please note that by the criteria being used to delete this article, the William T. Powers article (which has no references) should be deleted too. After which, and by logic since Powers was the scientist behind Perceptual Control Theory, that article should be deleted too. What are your thoughts? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you that the William T. Powers article is a bit weak in citations, so I added a {{refimprove}} tag to it. As the originator of the PCT concept, I might tend to presume that he is more notable than Cziko, but all articles should have adequate reliable sourcing. I took a quick look at the scholar.google.com link that you provided, but everything listed on its first page was written by Cziko himself, which is undesirable for sourcing purposes. I have limited time for work on this (as we all do, I suppose), so I may not sink a lot of further effort into it. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi @BarrelProof: Thanks for adding the improve tag to William T. Powers, it was, indeed, needed. And yes, I agree that Powers is more notable (as he relates to PCT concept) than Cziko. However, with Cziko being mentored by Powers, and with Powers being deceased, I honestly don't believe that the PCT concept (history/importance/etc.) can be fully understood (at least here on WP) without including Cziko. No matter how small, I've always taught (and been taught), every single piece to a research puzzle is important to fully understand it. And yes, many of the PCT research papers I directed you (and others) to are written by Cziko, but published in peer reviewed academic journals, and when you get to about page 9 you begin to see others where he's citied. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note I believe that the crux of this entire discussion revolves around the issue of if pctweb.org[38][39] is a reliable source or not. This is crtical issue to resolve as it not only affects this article, but that of the developer[40] of Perceptual Control Theory, William T. Powers, too. Now I know that WP:IRS(NS) is an unofficial guidance essay, however, in following its guidelines that say "statements and reports from reputable expert bodies", pct.org, indeed, meets that criteria as it is managed by Dr. Warren Mansell[41] and all of whose content, therefore, I believe constitutes reliable statements and reports from expert bodies as this is the global site of PCT theory for other academics and researchers. I would greatly appreciate others thoughts on this issue. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- My impression is that since Mansell's web site is self-published and since there is no indication that Mansell is a leading highly-renowned scholar (e.g., there is no Wikipedia article about him, and as a Reader, he is not even a tenured faculty member, much less someone with exceptional well-accepted credentials), his self-published web site should not be considered a reliable source for most purposes on Wikipedia. He does not fit the description of "reputable expert bodies". In my opinion, the best source that we currently cite in the article to establish notability for Cziko is the article by Terrence Deacon in American Scientist. However, that is about Cziko's book, not about Cziko, and writing a well-regarded introductory textbook does not seem like something that ordinarily justifies having an article about its author on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the overall article is still questionable including for the applicable notability, the article contains nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to be a little bold here, but someone, anyone, has REALLY got to explain why a teenage high school football player, Rashan Gary, and an NFL rookie who hasn't played a single professional game, Ezekiel Elliott, are not having their articles debated for deletion, but an over 60-year-old professor emeritus who is an acknowledged leader in a new and cutting edge field that is, and will continue to, change our ideas about human perception no one will even think about supporting. I will freely acknowledge that my local newspaper hasn't covered this person, but its sports page is the largest section of the paper so I don't expect it to. And if anyone wants to fully understand where we're at today, just read what Ben Rhodes (he's the guy that runs the White House and is President Obama's right-hand person) told the NYT times last week: "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing."[42] With the WP criteria everyone loves to cite here, and elsewhere, I would think a new discussion should be undertaken not just to delete this article, but to change the name of Wikipedia too--how about Sportsapedia? Seriously though, and finally, when something is wrong it must be changed, and if this isn't wrong I don't know what is. Thanks for listening. Picomtn (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five publications with over 100 cites each on Google scholar is enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets the first criterion of WP:ACADEMIC #1. According to WorldCat, his top two books published by MIT are held by 400+ and 300+ libraries, and in Northern California where I live, they are the libraries of the very best universities such as Berkeley and other UC campuses, Stanford and so on. Google Scholar shows that his research has been widely cited by other academics for decades. BarrelProof, please note that for influential and widely cited academics, there is no requirement that they be the subject of significant coverage about them in independent reliable sources. Professors are not pop stars, and GNG does not apply in such cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would quibble with this: the other works citing his are independent reliable sources. It is his works that we should look for coverage of, not his personal life. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they are independent, reliable sources of the type but my point is that they do not (and do not need to) devote significant coverage to Cziko as a person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was also under the impression that WP:ACADEMIC calls for significant coverage (in independent, reliable sources) of the academic as a person, but I haven't participated in many/any AFDs about professors (saw a notice about this one on WP:PSYCH and clicked the link out of curiosity). I'll take Cullen328's word for how the policy is usually interpreted, but I want to clarify first to make sure I understand... Criteria #1 states, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I would have assumed it meant there were independent reliable sources that said, more or less explicitly, this specific professor had an impact on the field. Cullen328, are you saying that "significant impact" for academics is usually defined as having their works held at a large number of libraries and by being widely cited by other scholars? PermStrump(talk) 23:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you read the entire guideline, Permstrump, you will see this statement: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." I believe that Cziko meets this standard. In my opinion, the fact that his books published by MIT are held by hundreds of libraries which are primarily university libraries is additional evidence that he is an influential and therefore notable academic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen's and David Eppstein's arguments. Academics demonstrate notability through coverage of their work, not via celebrity pseudo-journalism bios. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excellent citation record passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 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 merge to Aquilifer. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Petrosidius[edit]

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

No evidence at all of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. He was the subject of a single one-sentence mention in a book, and that is all. Some of the references don't even mention him, and I have been unable to find any source anywhere which gives him more than a single sentence mention. A PROD was removed by the editor who created the article, with an edit summary which said "I do assure you that Lucius Petrosidius meets the notibility guidelines because he is the only named aquilifer (prestigious rank in roman military) in all of history." However, while that is an interesting observation, it has no bearing whatever on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately perhaps and Draft if ever needed, Books literally only finds a few links, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aquilifer. As we move back in history, there's less reliable sources on, well, everything. Still, it is not our job to create them. It is up to historians to write about such topics. This is, in essence, a historical OR essay, and as such does not belong here. "espite only being referenced once in historical text, Lucius Petrosidius' life was one of great significance, for he is one of the only Aquilifers in history to have his named preserved" - this is an assertion of importance that seems to come from the author of this Wikipedia article, not from any reliable source. Parts of this can be merged to Aquilifer, presumably, through I am not sure if more then one sentence "LP is the only aq... whose name is preserved in history" would survive. Sadly, again, everything else here is non-encyclopedic OR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to see how one of the only surviving accounts of a man who served in one of the most prestigious positions of the longest standing civilization in human history cannot meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. User:PETROSIDIUS" (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aquilifer. -- My guess is that we know nothing of this man except for a brief mention by Caesar. Accordingly, the circumstances of his death and his bravery are noteworthy. The aquilifer (eagle-bearer) was the standard bearer of a Roman legion. I would not like to see us lose this content from WP. However, I doubt there is enough to merit a separate article. Standard merge procedure will leave a redirect. The core of this article will provide an appropriate section for that article: "Few aquilifers are recorded individually in history. An exception to this is Lucius Petrosidius ...". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Felton[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of the references are by Felton, not about him, and give the appearance of being there to publicise his work. Several other references are not independent sources, such as pages about him on the web sites of his literary agent, the publisher of a book he wrote and a business selling the book. There are slso at least two "references" which don't even mention him. (Note: The article was created by "Markfelton", who is also responsible for substantially all of the content: other editors have mostly done minor cleaning up.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mark Felton's book Zero Night has received (excellent) reviews around the World: Australia, USA, UAE, Scotland, Spain. So he passes my personal interpretation of WP:AUTHOR. Notability does not depend on the pseudonym of the article creator, and neither does it depend on the sources present in the English Wikipedia article on 6 May 2016. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which of WP:AUTHOR's criteria are passed by a single book having recieved good reviews? I can't see it myself... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

with that many reviews a seperate book article could be created, a gsearch also brings up some others, just have to look. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in fact have created such an article here - Zero Night. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I simply found nothing else better, overall still questionable and nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article subject passes WP:GNG and passes WP:AUTHOR based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources including the reviews received here: [43], [44], [45], and [46]. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:AUTHOR in the field of military history, with plenty of independent articles/reviews ie. Japan's Gestapo - "is a bleak and disturbing historical narrative describing an intelligence institution-and indeed, perhaps mankind-at its worst .. this book deals with an issue that is desperately important and has unfortunately been covered up, ignored, and overlooked for a number of years. .. japan's Gestapo addresses a number of incredibly important issues, and Felton is a truly masterful writer; the book is beautifully written, and the prose is incredibly compelling in spite of the uncomfortable and at times disturbing subject matter-with which it deals. .. That being said, this book is not recommended to any reader who wishes to gain insight beyond a visceral sense of the historic wrongdoing of the Japanese. .. There is no question of ambiguity-nearly every American or Englishman portrayed in the book is spoken about in glowing terms ("heroic" and "brave"), while the Japanese are described almost unilaterally as sadistic, cruel, and paranoid. .. In many ways, this book represents a missed opportunity. .. As a reference work and a cautionary tale of how horribly an organization can go astray, the book is invaluable. As an aid in understanding what happened and why-and how future horrors can be prevented-it is sadly inadequate." from the International Journal of Intelligence Ethics(a blocked google page but just do a gsearch to find), "Not for those looking for a cozy fireside New Year read. .. Felton’s grasp of historical facts is compromised, though, when he asserts that their doings reveal a “truly bizarre and sadistic streak rooted in the Japanese character.”" in The Japan Times[47]; Slaughter at Sea - "criminal acts by personnel of the Imperial Navy have largely been overlooked. This oversight is remedied by Slaughter at Sea .. the book is useful for those with an interest in the Pacific War or the Law of War." in StrategyPage[48], "Painstaking research by British historian Mark Felton reveals that the wartime behaviour of the Japanese Navy was far worse than their counterparts in Hitler's Kriegsmarine. .. Sixty five years later people should still remember; some actions are too awful to be ever forgotten, ever forgiven." in American Thinker, also reviewed by Ausmarine[49]; The Final Betrayal reviewed by Journal of Military History[50] and World War II[51]; undoubtly more but zzzzs required Coolabahapple (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR with the current references in the article. Indeed, the current article has quite a bit of WP:CITEKILL, which is extremely annoying, and usually points to a weak notability. If kept, the article should be edited to remove all but the most pertinent cites, no more than 2-3 in any one statement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:14, 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. Nakon 03:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change Experiment[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources at all. (Note: A deletion proposal (WP:PROD) was removed by an IP editor without any reason being given.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This seems to be a major and highly-cited project. The Wikipedia article should have inline references, rather than the reference list at the end like it does now, and a few additional references might be good. However, this looks like useful information to have on Wikipedia. OtterAM (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources that indicate that it's "a major and highly-cited project"? If you can, then I may well be willing to change my mind, but simply saying that it "seems to be" one, without explaining why, isn't very helpful. The fact that the references are not inline is a defect of the layout of the article, but it has no bearing at all on the issue of whether it should be deleted: whether references are inline or not makes no difference to their value in establishing notability. "A few additional references" not just "might be good", they are essential, as none of the references given at present are third party sources, they are all written by the experimenters. If there are third party sources that you know of, please provide them. As for "this looks like useful information to have on Wikipedia", you may find it helpful to read WP:USEFUL. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few things online, like this [52], this [53], and this [54]. On Google Scholar there are >100 papers that mention "The Hurricane Rainband and Intensity Change Experiment" [55]. I said that it is useful since Wikipedia provides a quick overview of ~~an important~~ a frequently discussed study in the field. OtterAM (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is not very well organized but RAINEX is a well know experiment (non exhautive list of AMS articles about it https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/search-results/?cx=006604013691433161533%3Acni8ugxqzym&q=RAINEX&sa=&cof=FORID%3A11). If this article is not worth to be in Wikipedia, none in the Category:Meteorology research and field projects are worth either.
Keep A quick search finds [56] showing it was being discussed in mainstream newspapers. Together with all the scholarly sources above, this topic is definitely notable. The article may not yet be particularly good, but deletion is not cleanup. Happy Squirrel (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a great article, but this appears to be a highly cited and influential experiment. Some attention from a meteorology-minded person could make this quite worthwhile.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and referenced. DeVerm (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article satisfy notability criteria. --Dcirovic (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Draft instead especially if needed since I have found quite several links especially from the past 10 years or so, but still nothing convincingly better for the article itself. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft. This seems like an interesting topic (but a terrible title for the article), but sadly, it fails our notability standards. The four references in the article are to scientific papers, which are first-party sources, and thus not suitable as sources to establish notability. I looked at the three sources supplied by OtterAM. The Science Daily piece is a reprint of an NSF press release. I assume NSF is the funding agency, so this is again a first-party source. The phys.org one is, again, a reprint of a press release ("Source: University of Washington"). Although it's not explicitly stated, the USA Today piece also reads like a press release. The best source I see is the Washington Post article suggeste by Happysquirrel. This is a good source, in a major newspaper, which discusses the topic in depth. But, it's just one source, and since I can't find any others, I'd have to say we this fails WP:GNG's multiple sources are generally expected. So, I'd say move to draft, work on finding better sources, do some serious rewriting of the article text, definitely find a better title (RAINEX comes to mind), and maybe at some point in the future it'll be ready to move back to mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to omit this article. There's no consensus about whether a redirect to legal death would be appropriate, but anybody may create (and anybody may then request deletion of) such a redirect. Sandstein 08:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medical definition of death[edit]

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

The creation of this article is unfortunately attributed to me, except that I didn't really create it. In 2007 I created a stub for "Legal death" that was then transmorgrified into different subject matter and renamed "Medical definition of death" after the article was correctly identified as a WP:Coatrack in 2014. Legal death now has its own article, so that subject is fine. The remaining Medical definition of death article is at best a content fork that is redundant with other articles already on Wikipedia, such as Legal death, Brain death, Organ transplantation, cryonics and especially the Diagnosis section of the main Death article. If there is any notable non-redundant encylopedic information in the article, it would be better if it was added to the above articles where it would benefit from the monitoring of editors with expertise in those subjects. While sustained poor quality per se is not an argument for deletion on Wikipedia, the lack of development of this article is likely related to the better coverage of the subject matter encompassed by the title elsewhere on Wikipedia. Cryobiologist (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Legal death. The article also has long paragraphs without references. OtterAM (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a good solution to me. The lede still defines the article as being about legal death, raising the question of what this article is supposed to be about if not legal death. Cryobiologist (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose: The current article clearly discusses the ethics regarding the definition of death. legal death does not have nearly as much content. I am no expert on medicine, but my guess is that if you ask a Ph.D. in medicine, a lawyer, a philosopher, a priest and an artist what the definition of "death" is you will get five distinctly different answers. What's more, it would dependent on what content and culture you asked the question. What needs to be done instead is to differentiate the two articles not to delete content for no good reason. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Concern: Canvassing by the creator of this RfC may be taking place. See [57] --David Tornheim (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I was following the prompts and instructions that came up when I clicked "Preloaded debate" in the AfD page, the last one of which was to provide courtesy notices to editors of the nominated article if understood correctly. I therefore posted notes on the talk pages of the last two significant contributors to the article to advise them of the nomination. I've been around Wikipedia awhile, but am nevertheless an inexperienced editor. I can't remember the last time I nominated a page for deletion, so if I did something incorrectly please explain so I can do it correctly in the future. Cryobiologist (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "concern" is misplaced: a deletion nominator is explicitly urged to contact possibly-interested editors and projects that a nomination is in progress - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom (or redirect anywhere else, or just WP:TNT), merge any referenced - David Gerard (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it all suggests it's best connected to that. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a fairly important article (see the talk page), and better arguments need to be given to delete it without searching online more (WP:BEFORE). Bearian (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Wikipedia already has an article on Clinical death. How is this one different? I would say that disputes about medical definitions should be in the clinical death article. Ceosad (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my !vote. Each of the two articles have different POVs. In this case only, I think we ignore all rules about forking articles and keep both, one of which is medical and one legal. Bearian (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Could those editors who don't think this article should be redirected to legal death please explain what they believe this article should be about if not legal death? The article could then be renamed appropriately, or least the lede rewritten to give editors a guide to what the content of the article should be. As it stands now, I don't know what "medical definition of death" means if not legal death. Since the article title has no generally understood meaning apart from legal death, I don't know what content discipline should pertain to this article. Cryobiologist (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, but do not redirect to Legal death. Maybe recreate immediately, but about a whole different subject.

About the redirection: simply put, even if legal death is one of the subjects of the current article, it is not a plausible redirect. You have what the law uses as criteria to announce someone dead, and what physicians say defines "death", but those are not the same things even if the definitions coincide (because lawmakers are not complete idiots).

The current article is a mix of organ transplantation, brain death, some moral considerations, and some "information-theoretic death" mumbo-jumbo. The first two are already better dealt with at their current articles, I am baffled the last was merged without someone rushing it into AfD as it seems to me to be WP:FRINGE at its best ('nuff said). The "moral and ethical issues" section could be split-merged between organ transplantation, euthanasia, and maybe some religion pages.

All in all, the intended subject of the current article is not clear. However, I could very well envision an article dealing with various viewpoints from physicians, biologists etc. about what constitutes "death" titled "medical definition of death". It is not clear to me it would be notable (I kinda think it would be, but I would need to do some source-searching), but at any rate that would keep nothing from the current content. Hence, WP:TNT (delete and recreate is cleaner than blanking the page before starting from scratch). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the four paragraphs cited only to two non-peer-reviewed papers - David Gerard (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found what I was looking for since my comment, which is civil death, to which I suggest to redirect as a plausible target if no article is kept in the manner I suggested. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, of course, redirecting "medical definition of death" to "civil death" is stupid. I managed to confuse myself. Redirect to Clinical death, that is much better. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, including the merge of data into the related articles. DeVerm (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about redirect !votes: please write the target of your redirect in your comment. I would assume legal death but there are other plausible options (brain death, etc.). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can you redirect "medical death" to "legal death" when the two are different in principle? Somebody can be legal death without being medical death. DeVerm (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this in the sense of a missing person being declared legally dead, or something more subtle and technical? Except for a missing person, I'm not able to think of a situation where a legally dead person would not also be considered medically dead. The reason for this is that medical determinations of death are supposed to follow legal standards. It's true, as acknowledged in the language of the UDDA itself, that there are medical standards that go into determinations of death to comply with legal definitions. Nevertheless, as far as I know, a determination of death in medicine is always a legal determination of death. In other words, any article about determinations of death in medicine would be an article about how people are determined by medicine to be dead under the law. Cryobiologist (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In other examples, there is civil death. Otherwise, do you have a source for "medical determinations of death are supposed to follow legal standards" (in the meaning, I assume, that such medical determinations have legal value)? I mean, of course the legal declaration of death is usually based on a medical declaration, but I could imagine cases where the government's official comes every week and the Sunday is registered as "date of death" (legal) for every person who died during the week, while the local physician does declare people dead to the families after visits. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't work that way. See here for a brief explanation of how people are pronounced dead. You are legally dead when a legally empowered official (typically a licensed physician or sometimes nurse) makes a medical determination of death in accordance with laws for that determination. That time is recorded as the legal time of death. The State won't know about the legal death before the paperwork is filed, but legal death has nevertheless occurred. Legally, marriage works the same way. Cryobiologist (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is about the United States in the current day and age. The rules are probably similar in other developed countries as well, but I would not expect a high standard in (say) Somalia.

Moreover, clinical death is a much more natural redirection than legal death for medical definition of death, don't you think? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal death also includes people who have been declared dead in absentia. Usually they have been murdered or lost at sea. Various kinds of medieval outlawry (like civil death) might or might not qualify as a legal death too. This is why I think the clinical death is a lot better target for redirecting. Ceosad (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately redirecting to clinical death doesn't work because you can be medically dead without being clinically dead (as in brain death), and you can be medically alive while being clinically dead such as during DHCA or more commonly during code blue resuscitation efforts. In medical care settings, clinical death and medical death only overlap when there is a DNR order. It is indeed possible to be legally dead without being declared medically dead. This could happen in abstentia or in underdeveloped countries where a medical official never comes into contact with a body. But the converse, a person being medically dead but not legally dead, doesn't seem to be possible. If there is a jurisdiction where declaration of medical death was not simultaneously a declaration of legal death, that would seem to mean a person could be charged with homicide by asphyxiation for moving a body to the morgue. If legal death was drawn on a Venn diagram, then medical death would be a big circle inside it, an almost encompassing circle in developed countries. That's why redirecting to legal death made sense to me. The problem is that ~~the discussion of medical declaration of death within the legal death article is only a stub when it should be huge, and~~ the medical definition of death article that is the subject of this nomination is horrible. It doesn't even mention the UDDA which is the cornerstone of determining death in the United States. What to do? Do we redirect to the legal death#Medical declaration placeholder of the legal death article ~~in anticipation that it will be filled with good information in the future,~~ or leave the pretty bad dedicated article on medical definition of death without redirection in hope that someone in the future will rewrite it? Cryobiologist (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could do a placeholder disambiguation page that lists these various cases, or we can add a few hatnotes to the relevant articles in addition of the redirect. The hatnotes should be added in any case to be fair, and they would help people find what they want. Ceosad (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the Legal death#Medical declaration article section so that there's now a stronger case for redirecting to it until someone rewrites the bad Medical definition of death article. If we don't redirect Medical definition of death, there should at least be a hatnote on it directing readers to the better explanation in the legal death article. Cryobiologist (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Information-theoretic death and delete everything except the relevant section to create a stub, AND/OR Redirect the current title to clinical death. I could see the information-theoretic death as a notable and very important (cryonics related) topic on its own right, but this article is way too weird and suffers in its current shape from insurmountable coatracking issues. The information-theoretic death article might need to be written (and the existing redirect must be eliminated), but this article has almost nothing salvageable due to the overall lack of references as noted above. I strongly oppose redirecting to legal death, as that one is about law. @Cryobiologist: Do you think that the Information-theoretic death deserves its own article? Ceosad (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I do think that Information-theoretic death should have its own article. It actually has had one since 2004, but after some experienced editors recently identified problems with it, it got trimmed, content merged, and redirected into the Medical definition of death article. I'm presently working on a rewrite of Information-theoretic death to address problems that were identified. There's no need to rename this article or create a new article because old Information-theoretic death article still exists as a redirect. Cryobiologist (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Information-theoretic death" is a cryonics jargon term that is only ever used in cryonics. I don't think there was enough in that article originally to make a substantial article. (The four paragraphs from two non-peer-reviewed Merkle papers that were in this article started there.) But if Cryobiologist can make one that wouldn't do better as a few paragraphs in Cryonics, that would be useful. The present article is still terrible and needs redirect, deletion or WP:TNT, though - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, these are good arguments. I did not notice that the redirect page had been an article. I have struck the part about renaming from my !vote. Ceosad (talk) 13:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Weed Crossroad, Alabama. MBisanz ^talk 22:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weedville, AL[edit]

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

I could find no evidence that such a place exists, beyond Wikipedia mirror sites. Pinguinn (🐧) 22:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear in the GNIS database or Google Earth. Probably a hoax.- Mr X 22:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not appearing in searches, hoax. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you three. You do know that we've had a Weedville, Alabama page since 2015, don't you? Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting since the source in that article has nothing to do with Weedville, and everything to do with Weed Crossroad. It looks like a re-title is in order.- Mr X 00:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Move Weedville, Alabama to Weed Crossroad, Alabama to match the official ~~census designated~~ GNIS name, and then Redirect this article there, since Weedville appears to be a somewhat used non-standard name. For instance see this news story, this presumably official 2012 post and the similar 2015 news announcement, and these minutes. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I would've commented sooner if it wasn't for the speedy removed, this is clearly fabricated and nothing else suggests otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Conway (academic)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Does not meet any of the criteria set out there, or in the specific criteria notes set out there. Article is unsourced, despite request for citations dated August 2014. External link given for 'Civitas weblog' does not lead to any information about subject (even in site search). Smerus (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Four of his books are by major academic publishers (Penguin, Palgrave Macmillan, Ashgate) and I found five reliably-published academic reviews of them. That may be more relevant than citation counts for this sort of academic subject, and likely is also enough to pass WP:AUTHOR. It also saves the article from being unsourced, although sources for the biographical detail of the article and not just for his publication activities are still needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per the publication by Penguin and Palgrave Macmillan (Ashgate helps but wouldn't be enough) w/ reviews in journals such as Philosophy -- this should be sufficient for C1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. both of the above 'keep' proposals rely on WP:AUTHOR - they do not disagree with a failure under WP:ACADEMIC. I point out that the criteria under WP:AUTHOR do not relate to number of books, or the quality of their publishers: they are:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Nothing in the article, or in the "keep" comments of David Eppstein or Michael Scott Cuthbert, or that I have been able to source, indicates that any of these criteria have been met. -- Smerus (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the books count as "a significant body of work" and that the reviews count as "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", according to WP:AUTHOR #3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe however that you need independent, reliable, sources to confirm that it is 'significant'. The criteria refer to the works' innate significance, not to (e.g.) a significant number of works.--Smerus (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to require that an independent reliable source contains the exact literal phrase "this is a significant body of work" then a lot of notable people are not going to pass. Or you could, you know, interpret the word "significant" in this guideline with its usual English meaning, something that is not meager. Four books with major publishers is significant in this sense. What the guideline asks the independent reliable sources to do is to exist (and, presumably, cover the subject in some non-trivial depth), not necessarily to trumpet the importance of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a bit of WP:OR involved here on David Eppstein's part in asserting what is a 'usual' meaning. Wiktionary gives 5 meanings to 'significant', of which "Reasonably large in number or amount" comes 4th - above it are what I myself would consider its 'usual' meanings, "Signifying something;", "Having a covert or hidden meaning"; and "Having a noticeable or major effect; notable". As this discussion is about notability, I suggest it is this latter meaning which is relevant here. Of the making of books there is no end, as Ecclesiastes tells us: but Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity. Anyway I am taking this point to discussion on the Notability talk page.--Smerus (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing things in an article that one infers rather than from sources is OR. Using one's knowledge of English to interpret guidelines during an AfD is not OR. And stretching the OR guideline so far out of recognition is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have expressed my opinion, as you have expressed yours. The only third party opinion expressed so far on the talk-page agrees with me, for what that is worth. Best, Smerus (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: When this AfD began, my first reaction was surprise: I recognised the name and recalled reading some pieces by the subject a quarter century ago. My instinct was for retention (also swayed by his Marx book being in Pelican) but when I went looking for supporting material, I was surprised how little was to hand - too little, I felt, to sustain a case. Since then some book reviews have been identified; I lack access to assess their depth, but for me the notability criteria (whether as academic or author, and appreciating these are far stricter than apply to rappers, footballers and pageant queens) require some evidence of influence: others picking up and engaging with the subject's work. If there is clear evidence of that - for example around the subject's recent anti-EU publication (around which I could see no waves?), then I can be moved to a Weak Keep but until then I feel it is a Weak Delete. AllyD (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there's general disagreement on this point, AllyD, but I feel that other scholars choosing to publicly review the book, especially in a major forum like Philosophy, is the sort of evidence of influence that goes strongly towards notability. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft instead if needed as this should be removed from mainspace for now as it's still questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 25 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} 13:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The text of the Wikipedia article does not explain why this academic is noteworthy. It's just a short summary of where he lived and the jobs that he has held, none of which alone is sufficient for WP:PROF. If the consensus turns out to be that his written works are sufficiently noteworthy, I think that it is necessary to explain why they are noteworthy in the body of the article. The article doesn't even say what David Conway studies beyond "theology" and "philosophy." OtterAM (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @OtterAM:, this looks like a delete opinion, am I right?--Smerus (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Books from highly-regarded publishers reviewed in top journals by significant philosophers; surely that's enough? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I added another book review, and I note that chapter 7 of Market, State and Feminism: The Economics of Feminist Policy is for the most part about Conway's 1998 book. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm counting six maybe seven reviews of David Conway books from JSTOR alone. I'd give you hits from other databases but I'm getting shellacked by a children's author. I should add that there are a lot of David Conways. No opinion. czar 22:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Careful here, because not all the references on JSTOR are to this David Conway. A number are to the writer on philosophy David A. Conway of the University of Missouri-St. Louis, who is quite another person.--Smerus (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So already in the article are book reviews in Review of Austrian Economics, Philosophy (two), American Political Science Review, Nations and Nationalism, and Journal of Libertarian Studies. Also found reviews in Life and School: Journal for the Theory and Practice of Education, a write-up in The Telegraph, an article by Mark Skousen in The Freeman, 48 doesn't cover him much but says "More recently, David Conway's A Farewell to Marx (Penguin Books, 1987) has received high praise for his deft criticisms," which indicates there's more to find, he's featured prominently in this Express article, etc. Probably closer to weak keep than keep, but ultimately, it looks like there's enough to satisfy WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Josh Milburn. Coverage of one's work is the most important way of demonstrating notability for creative professionals. Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus are outliers, not typical examples. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:43, 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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Secret Handshake[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF. Not a notable film. Only 271 ratings on IMDb and average rating of 4.7/10. Very few sources on film. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 07:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see coverage in reliable sources. Google results are just torrent sites. IMDb stats are irrelevant to a film's notability (I've created articles on films that didn't even have an IMDb entry), but I agree that this fails our notability criteria. It's difficult to tell for sure, but the linked review from The Movies Made Me Do It looks self-published. I don't see any evidence of editorial control at that site. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per failing WP:NF. I watched the film and even though it was not too bad, I was unable to find it spoken of in reliable sources. Maybe in other languages? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting applicably better for a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petie Chalifoux[edit]

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

Local film producer fails WP:NLI. A google News search for her name shows 8 sources. Of those, only these 3 were about her [58] [59][60]. This is way too few to meet WP:NLI. EDIT: just noticed that the author is herself User:Petie Chalifoux. This page is self-promotion. CerealKillerYum (talk) 06:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO. There is some coverage of Chalifoux, but is not significant or noteworthy in general or in field. Agree with nom that article is probably self-promotion. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincing for the applicable notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NORSUnian[edit]

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

Strong Delete It's an article about a university publication that does not meet with Wikipedia's Notability criteria. It doesn't even have references to support and defend their so—called notability.

Igetitcrackinlikebagbag (talk) 13:42, 6 May,2016 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 May 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting the solid independent notability and its improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Non-notable subject. Sixth o f March 09:49, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lhu Wen Kai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG by a mile. The only reference in a reliable source would be [61], where a tweet by the article subject is featured. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitley fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No page in Malay/Chinese suggests that not notable in those languages either. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually convincing to improve for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 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 delete. Speedily deleted by Maile66. (non-admin closure)

Malagnorum[edit]

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

Beyond the scope of Wikipedia; this article looks like a dictionary entry instead. Ueutyi (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should be a disambiguation page or article of wiktionary? EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disambiguation, because it only links to overabundance, and to plethora (which itself means "overabundance"). Plus, there are very few Google hits for "malagnorum" - does the word even mean "overabundance"? (Is there any evidence that such usage actually exists?) Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The only place where the word appears in Google search are the scans of some old Latin books. Of these, three appear to be a personal or place name, the last some corrupted text caused by the scanner reading the text from the reverse side of the page. Speedy deletion under criterion WP:CSD#A11, anyone? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not an English word as far as I, or the Oxford English Dictionary, or even Google know. Cnilep (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Cnilep. No definition in Oxford Dictionary either. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me, it looks more like a hoax than a dictionary entry. Peridon (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another place it can't be found is Hartrampf's Vocabularies. I don't have Roget, so I can't check there. But I can check the Times English Dictionary - guess what? They've not got it either. Peridon (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a not very commonly used latin word, but combining prefix mal- and agnorum, the word means bad lamb. Ueutyi (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, Google Translate doesn't recognise it. 'Bad lamb' is possibly a bit obscure (actually, 'of the bad lambs' to be strict), and it would be a genitive plural, which is odd for a noun used nominatively. (OK, there is omnibus, but that was used as a dative on purpose - 'for all'.) Peridon (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JoJo Ryder[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Verges on Spam reddogsix (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again. The article was clearly written either by the subject or a PR person in his employ and is full of peacock terms and fame-by-association. What it lacks is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This is nothing but self-promotion. Pburka (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again also since it's still not convincing of solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 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 delete. This discussion has demonstrated a lack of verifiability of this institution's claims, so I'm deleting the article without prejudice against recreation if independently verified information about this institution can be cited. Der yck C. 13:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jamia Al Islamiya[edit]

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

Citation needed and Wikipedia:Notability - ArtsRescuer (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh dear, prepare to be flooded by keep-!voters claiming notability just because it is an existing university. - HyperGaruda (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 13:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that according to its website it awards bachelors' degrees. If these are accredited by an official body then it should be kept per longstanding consensus and precedent that degree-awarding institutions are notable. We need some proof that they are, however. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a member of the Federation of the Universities of the Islamic World [62]. I haven't had the time to look if it's accredited by an organisation within India. Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as searches do not find much, although universities are normally kept, a few more RS's are needed on this one. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain at this moment because I would've suggested keeping if it's notable but if it's not an applicably notable university, delete especially considering the article's current tone. Asking DGG for schools analysis here. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All universities should be considered notable. In the case of universities that are in some degree out of the Western academic tradition, accreditation can be a meaninglesscriterion. The difficulty of locating sources in the case of traditional nonWestern ones is a limitation of our resources,and any evidence of real existence should be accepted in order to avoid cultural bias. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with that case as I'm going with my initial thoughts of keeping as a notable university. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V as presented because of lacking reliable sources. The view that all universities are automatically notable is unsupported by policy and practice, if only because anybody can found something and call it an university. Sandstein 08:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article or in searches shows that it meets notability criteria. Nothing to show it's accredited. Current version would qualify for deletion as a purely promotional piece. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I know that articles on universities are generally kept, but this one has received coverage in very few reliable sources and fails GNG. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 11:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From The Fields[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. reddogsix (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It passed a tough Editorial Review by the Stanislaus County Library and was included in its Special Collections Section. I'll go with the opinion of a professional librarian with a Masters degree over an anonymous keyboard commando on wikipedia. What say you.[[63]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPRichard2013 (talk • contribs)

Comment - How does this meet the criteria in WP:NOTBOOK? reddogsix (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being suitable for a library's local collection does not mean the book meets the (rather jargon-named) notability requirements. What is needed for that is multiple reliable secondary sources about the book. The newspaper article is a good start, but not sufficient on its own. (What is more likely is that the existence of a book such as yours (I presume you are the author, DPRichard2013 - see also WP:COI) could be used as evidence that the subject matter of the book is a notable topic worthy of an article here. Feel free to hit me up on my talk page for further discussion. LadyofShalott 06:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere are two links to a 1-hour local radio interview on the page the entire hour devoted to discussion of the book. Unfortunately, the Turlock Journal article is the only local paper that can be linked to because the others have paywalls or do not archive stories. Remember, just because you can find it on the Internet does not make it true, just as because you cannot find it on the Internet does not make it false.

I am not the author, but like he is, I am from Turlock and wanted to put up a page about the great book he wrote and about him too. He is a great up and coming author who deserves recognition. I have reached out to him about what is going on here. His opinion of Wikipedia is not a good one and I have to admit that I am beginning to see his point with this nonsense that I am having to go through just to get the article on here.

Your insult of the "local" librarian speaks volumes about the kind of people that appear to be running this show. The County's Librarian is not from the area at all and is in fact a very well educated person with unquestionable credentials - at least unquestionable by those who actually know what they are talking about.

At this point I have devoted all of the time and effort I care to. Do what you will. Leave it up and prove that Wikipedia is truly a place where all knowledge and information is stored without bias. Or take it down and prove Mr. Paolinelli's opinion of you is completely valid.DPRichard2013 (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You really need to reread what LadyofShalott wrote. There was no insult against the librarian. The only slight was your misreading of the comment and your response to LadyofShalott. I suggest you read WP:UNCIVIL before commenting further. reddogsix (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, not enough references included which backs notability, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, including the non-internet available reviews would bolster this article. WorldCat lists no copies (although being notoriously out of date, zero copies is telling}. article created by spa (apart from also creating an article on the author}, maybe a delete/redirect is appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just can’t find anything to show that this passes NBOOK. The newspaper source has two things going against it. The first is that it’s a local source, something that’s greatly depreciated on Wikipedia because local sources are more likely to cover their people as part of a local interest story. Some editors don’t even consider local sources to be ones that can give notability. It’s not something I agree with, but I do think that local sources by themselves will rarely be enough to meet GNG. Sometimes, but rarely. The second is what eliminates it as a notability-giving source, as the paper states that Paolinelli worked for them. This makes the source primary, as the paper is going to want to cover someone who worked for them because it makes them look good by extension. This goes for any source: if Paolinelli worked for them or the book is related to them in some form or fashion (like if the high schools mentioned in the book covered his work), then it cannot establish notability.

Now as far as the radio spots go, I notice that the station is local, which causes the same concerns with local coverage. When it comes to the local library carrying it, circulation by itself does not count towards notability on Wikipedia. It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, especially if the book is in many libraries, but it’s never a guarantee. Moving on to the next point: offline sources were mentioned, but the problem with that is that we need to be able to verify that they’d meet Wikipedia’s requirements for RS. Being completely offline doesn’t mean that they’re unusable, but the sources being offline for a book that was published last year isn’t a very good sign. Being paywalled is fine, but we still need to be able to verify them. Until we can verify them, we have to assume that they cannot establish notability and aren’t RS. Normally I'd recommend a redirect, but the author's page is up for deletion so any redirect would rely on the author's page surviving AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must point this out. DPRichard2013, you say that you're not the author but your username gives off the strong impression that you are. I also note that your username is also almost identical to the author's e-mail address. I'm going to block this username as an impersonation, since stuff like that really isn't appropriate. Even if you're not the author, you still need to state your relation to him - are you a friend? Relative? Do you work with or for him? All COI must be made transparent and you can answer this on your userpage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for its own article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've yet to see even one single reliable source outside of the local area comment on the book at all, either positively, negatively, or neutrally, and I find the above points rather convincing. Just because a particular local publication is reviewing a local matter doesn't mean that it's not worth looking at, yes, but the conflict-of-interest concerns me. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Weeks[edit]

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Non notable person and no significant coverage or role played in field. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself would've deleted also, nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she'd won a national Canadian Screen Award for her journalism, or if somebody could properly source her over WP:AUTHOR for her book, then there'd be a credible case for notability. But winning a local journalism award doesn't confer notability on an article that's this minimally sourced, merely being a working journalist isn't an automatic inclusion freebie, and reliable source coverage about her is not turning up to satisfy WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any coverage about her. Can't pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 14:35, 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 delete. Author requests deletion Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Hurst[edit]

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

Created autobiography and I dislike it Matthewhurst8989 (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)cat=U[reply]

Delete I tagged for G7, why did you remove it? I don't think that you need to send this particular article to AFD. Feinoha ^Talk 03:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:43, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel-badeeh M. Salem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACADEMICS. Was nominated for deletion in 2008, but reached no consensus. Does not seem to have been influential or notable and has few sources about him, mostly from first party sources. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has GS h-index of 13 in a very well-cited field. Too low to make WP:Prof#C1 or any other WP:Prof category. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I found one reasonably well-cited publication ("An efficient enhanced k-means clustering algorithm", nearly 200 cites) but it's not enough, and his administrative position (dept. chair) is also not high enough to get notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability, I myself would've voted Delete at the 1st AfD. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Should have been Speedy deleted. NikolaiHo 21:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I favor deletion, I disagree that this is a good candidate for speedy deletion. The "head of department" claim in the article is enough of a claim of significance to save this from A7, and having survived an earlier AfD is another reason for not deleting this speedily. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the speedy tag has been removed since, so that's done. NikolaiHo 03:01, 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. Uncontested, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre 64[edit]

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

Unsourced article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a Google Books and major database search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 01:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 01:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT. The only source I could find on software was this [64], which says "Why Bizarre-64, like the Commodore-64, ultimately failed - bad hardware". This website was also created by the man who created the software. Also no edits on page since 2009. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, I don't think this Commodore 64 BBS software ever really made it into reliable sources, and there's nothing archived on the Internet that I can find in the usual places, such as Google Books and Archive.org. These sites have digital archives of many popular 8 bit computer magazines. If we can locate offline sources, maybe the article can come back. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing currently convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 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 redirect to Rewrite (visual novel). Whether to merge anything remains up to editors. Sandstein 08:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rewrite characters[edit]

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

These series characters, as a set, are not independently notable from the main series, as shown through their lack of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) A merge or redirect to the parent article's character section should suffice. The parent article is a GA and sufficiently covers the characters. czar 01:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar 01:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 01:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. czar 01:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a list of characters to the parent article. I generally disagree with Czar's reasoning that we cannot split off sections of articles unless the section would meet the notability guidelines on its own, as to me that seems like it unnecessarily hinders our ability to present the information in the format that is most readable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air characters for context). However, I also think a short sourced list could be merged to the main article, so there isn't really a need to keep this separate. I think that for characters, a list presents the information in a way that is easier to understand that just having prose. I think in particular the voice actors for the characters are important to include, are currently mostly missing from the main article, and are simpler to present when the information is in list format (just because the main article is a good article doesn't mean it has all the important information . . . some may have been left out specifically because it was in sub-articles like this one). I therefore don't think that the list should simply be deleted, but instead content should be merged. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, not convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and trim to parent article. Shorten supporting characters list to dictionary definition style. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from a few supporting characters (maybe 4 or 5), most of them are not that notable for inclusion in the main article, and trying to merge the majority of the content in this article into the main article would just destabilize it anyway.--十八 04:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rewrite. A merge could work, but the information would need to be highly trimmed and some of the minor characters would need to be removed. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not notable by itself, lot of rehashing of plot. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:08, 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 22:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DU Beat[edit]

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

A student newspaper with no inherent notability. The article has one source which is a passing mention in a newspaper article, but I could not find anything else which establishes notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - No notability found --Assefme (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's a source: "Upbeat on DU Beat". The Hindu. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as only a local newspaper with no other actual merge targets as it's not connected to one entity or the other, there's nothing convincingly solid for the needed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 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.

[1] ttp://cstc.org.in/web_nonac_rt.php

[2] ttp://cstc.org.in/web_ac_rt.php

[3] ttp://www.calcuttatramways.com/bus-route-search/

[4] ttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/First-bus-route-rejig-in-four-decades/articleshow/44778362.cms

[5] ttp://www.calcuttayellowpages.com/busroute.html

[6] ttps://www.calcuttaweb.com/travel/bus-routes/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]