Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 November	4 November >

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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radiša[edit]

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

Delete: name category with only one entry. Quis separabit? 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Quis separabit? 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think there does need to be at least two exact matches, per WP:APONOTE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, the policy says at least two must "exist" and we do have Radiša Čubrić. Therefore as I understand this would be a notable name article. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I wouldn't count on Radiša Čubrić being around much longer. AFDed as thoroughly non-notable athlete (see [1]). Quis separabit? 01:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Čubrić is most likely going to stick around as a former Olympian. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I speedily closed that one per WP:NOLYMPICS. I won't do so here as I have !voted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of Radiša Čubrić's existence until it was brought up here -- he was not included in the Radiša disambiguation page and when I reviewed Čubrić's article he seemed wholly non-noteworthy but the notability of sports figures is hard for me to gauge so I try to avoid it. In any event, BOLD and killing two birds with one stone notwithstanding, and pardon my grandstanding here:

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN; NO NEED FOR ANY FURTHER !VOTES Quis separabit? 15:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an unopposed nominator withdrawal, I think I can close this, despite my !vote. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kobayashi-Hillary[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any substantial, in-depth coverage of this person in reliable sources as required by the notability requirements for biographies. The best sources in the current article are mentions in BBC articles about him getting blocked on youtube [2]. He has written some books, but the reviews are insufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR. A search for other sources turned up another mention in the BBC, but still some way off what we require. SmartSE (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; fails GNG. Reads like a press promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNP. Cbs527 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BIO. All I could find for him, is that BBC source mentioned in nomination. And yes, it reads SPAM. Anup [Talk] 01:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 01:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 01:38, 9 November 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 Mýa discography. Sandstein 14:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody Come Get This Bitch[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG, coverage is limited and doesn't seem to have charted in any country. Aoba47 (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable song, coverage or charting shown. Kierzek (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mýa discography - It seems as though a page has been created for almost every single by Mýa, despite having no evidence of charting anywhere or getting significant media coverage. This song in particular fails WP:NSONG. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:00, 6 November 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Crow (archetype)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article content is already merged with Thomas D. Rice, the creator of this character. The content is solely this character (not an archetype). Suggest redirect to Thomas D. Rice, and the DAB to point also to Rice. Pincrete (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoh[edit]

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

not enough in depth secondary sources to merit a stand alone article for now thereby failing WP:GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Only one source (suspect at best) provided to establish notability. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, agree fails GNG and WP:Artist. Kierzek (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. can"t find any reliable source here --Music Boy ^{(talk to me)} 21:00, 10 November 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. Cerebellum (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Del Mar Academy[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the organization notability guidelines or general notability. Googling this brings up few results other than the school's website(and some other schools with a similar name) Given the username of the page creator(the same name as the school) page seems intended to be promotional(though not to the degree of a speedy deletion) 331dot (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as these specific schools are never found to actually be notable, let alone for their own article. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: This is not just a secondary school, but a more general educational facility(18 mos. up to 11th grade) The page says little more than this school exists, and was created by someone from the school. 331dot (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only being a secondary school does not make it not a secondary school! Strange statement. Proof of existence is enough for articles on secondary schools to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is its existence notable? There also seems to be a promotional element here. 331dot (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which summarises the consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a verified secondary school, per longstanding consensus as described at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: So one entry in a directory website is enough for this school to merit a page, without any indication about something about this school being notable? That page you cite (which is not a policy) states "independent sources" plural. I also think that the promotional aspect here is being glossed over; this page was created by someone from the school. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to support the notion that accredited secondary schools are worthy of being covered in English Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand what is notable about the mere existence of this school or accredited schools in general(the page does not discuss its accreditation) but even if I did, this page was created by the school, likely for promotional purposes. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever promotional about the article, so I fail to see your problem. It is consensus on Wikipedia that secondary schools should have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: It's promotional in that it was created by someone from the school so that when the school is googled it will pop on the results and direct people to their website; it appears on the first page of results that I get. That should matter as a conflict of interest. I get that secondary schools generally merit articles(though it is not a policy or guideline) and are somehow notable for their mere existence, but shouldn't the article consist of more than "this school exists"? 331dot (talk) 20:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's only "promotional" if it's clearly an advert. How on earth that stub (and stubs are perfectly acceptable) could be considered an advert is beyond me. All it does is provide basic information. There is nothing unacceptable about this article and it's pointless trying to claim that there is. You were obviously unaware that there is a consensus that secondary school articles are generally kept; that's fair enough, but now you do know, please just accept it and move on. The consensus is a very long-established one, has been discussed umpteen times and still stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what I was aware of and what I wasn't; I already said that I get SCHOOLOUTCOMES and that secondary schools generally get articles, which I will say again is not a policy or guideline, but something that occurs generally. There is exceptions for everything. This is clearly an advertisement to me, just as if I read it in a business or school directory. It doesn't have to say "Openings available now! Call 555-1234". If we differ on what promotional is, then so be it, and I respect that- but I'm not just making this up due to some unawareness you think I have. I also think that this article should say more than "it exists" even if its mere existence is enough in terms of notability. I'm not trying to force you to reply, and feel free not to- but this is how I feel. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was assuming good faith. If you were aware of the consensus then I assumed you wouldn't be clogging up AfD with unnecessary nominations! By your definition of an advertisement, I assume any article on an existing organisation or institution could be considered an advertisement! Maybe we should delete them all... -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the organization creates it themselves, maybe. I've seen many articles created where the creator worked for the organization and claimed they were creating it 'just to provide information' deleted as promotional, that weren't blatant advertisements. I'd love to hear why the creator made this article, but they haven't returned to defend it(or even attempt to be unblocked for their username violation), possibly after seeing the promotional warnings on their talk page. Whatever happens, I honestly thank you for this conversation. 331dot (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:HEY would not apply because day schools, as past AfDs have shown are not independently notable, only high schools or colleges & universities are since they are a significant degree-awarding school, day schools are not. Thus, the listed sources are simply expected and trivial news stories about them, that itself would not compromise otherwise given the numerous past AfDs which explicitly stated "Day schools are not independently notable". SwisterTwister talk 01:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per longstanding WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES consensus to keep verifiable secondary (American: "high",) schools.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: How do you feel about the conflict of interest of the page creator, who is associated with the school and essentially posted a directory listing, likely to promote the school? Does that not matter? 331dot (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not very much. The question here is always whether sources and policies support notability. For-profit businesses promoted by PR professionals on Wikiepdia are a real problem, and self-promoting wannabe singers, actors etc. are a huge headache. but when a secondary school does this, or a professional organization like the Australasian Tunnelling Society, I personally just wish they wold read our guidelines and do a better job of it. This school, for example, probably has more RS sourcing that school staff and alumni would know about. I'm hoping for WP:RS improvements over time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. Thank you 331dot (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Industry or market research[edit]

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

The article is not sourced and I can only find a book with this particular article title (it's a strange title by the way, containing "or"). Presumably this article is redundant per article Market research. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No new information is brought forth from this article. Simply a page full of links to other pages. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Paulin[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 20:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pomona alumni directory and IMDB are not sufficient third-party sources to establish WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, and WP:NACTOR --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total lack of reliable 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 8[edit]

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

Non notable bus routes, All fail GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Greater Manchester bus route 18 (Middleton to Rusholme)
Greater Manchester bus route 18 (Trafford Centre to Altrincham)
Greater Manchester bus route 41
Greater Manchester bus route 111
Greater Manchester bus route 118
Greater Manchester bus route 141
Greater Manchester bus route 142
Greater Manchester bus route 143
Greater Manchester bus route 145
Greater Manchester bus route 147
Greater Manchester bus route 181
Greater Manchester bus route 182
Greater Manchester bus route 451
Greater Manchester bus route 462
Greater Manchester bus route 471

–Davey2010^Talk 19:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Non notable local bus routes, doubt any will pass GNG Seasider91 (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all not notable. My jaw dropped when I saw that even the 145 had an article! The 192 (not nominated) shows what a notable route should look like. Some of these can be recreated as redirects to Wilmslow Road bus corridor following deletion. Jeni ^(talk) 16:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of these routes are notable. Class455 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 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 First Hampshire & Dorset. Sandstein 14:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Coast bus route X53[edit]

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

Non notable bus route, Was created by Jurassicline who was blocked for socking, Fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 19:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this merit a speedy deletion under the G5 criterion? Seasider91 (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seasider91 technically I think it does but there's so many bureaucratic admins on here that quite honestly it's easier just to send it here. –Davey2010^Talk 20:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. First Hampshire & Dorset covers all that needs to be said about this route. Jolly Ω Janner 18:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to First Hampshire & Dorset. Not notable enough for its own article. Class455 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of bus routes in London. Sandstein 14:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 320[edit]

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

Non notable bus route, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to List of bus routes in London. I am not certain where the editors in this topic place the cutoff for these public transit route articles, but a redirect preserves page history if at some point the topic becomes of adequate notability. Also, leaving a redlink is just bait to recreate the aritcle. Montanabw^(talk) 08:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is more or less to delete these, I see where you're coming from but there is no adequate sources for this route and unfortunately there never will be so IMHO deletion is the best outcome here however if the community does decide to go with redirect then I have no objections to that, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 12:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about some of these articles, and one thing that strikes me is the need to not have "redlink bait" for the situations where there is a strong liklihood of an article being re-created -- particularly where there is apt to be interest in creating complete lists of things like this. My thinking on this matter is not entirely solidified, but there is another argument that in many cases it's worth keeping a bit of edit history and the bluelink. Montanabw^(talk) 05:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage and route has only existed since 1990. Ajf773 (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Agree with Montanabw. Can't find anything that would make this route notable. I would usually vote keep if the route has a long history, but this doesnt, but if the route suddenly becomes notable for some reason, we can always revert back to the page. Class455 (talk) 22:14, 6 November 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 05:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humber College organizational structure[edit]

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

An WP:ADVERT for the college. No notability outside of the college's website. Hard to believe this has existed for more than ten years too! Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A lump of material mostly suitable to a college website but not here. The sole referenced item - about a student team winning a 2005 contest with 3 other institutions' teams - is more relevant to Humber_College#Recent_achievements (though probably not sufficient notable there either) than to a page about organizational structure. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:DIRECTORY with no indications why this content should be in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as literally no actual contents here but the simple list of what's featured, there's especially nothing to suggest this would be convincing and acceptable for its own article simply because it's no necessary at all. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unnecessary WP:DIRECTORY. I can't find any evidence that any other college or university on the planet has one of these, and Humber College is not special. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 13 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ramiro Gonzales[edit]

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

A couple of attempts have been made at speedy deletion and declined, so I will take to AfD. ~~I could go either way at this point.~~ He is a death row inmate and online coverage seems sufficient. However, I can see how some might invoke WP:BLP1E. ~~I will lean to keep at this point,~~ but I will nominate nonetheless so that the notability issue can be settled right away. Safiel (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I am on the edge on this and I may reconsider my stance on his notability. Wikipedia is not Murderpedia, so I will think on this a bit. I may end up shifting to delete. Safiel (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of coverage of his case, plus the story of his victim who was missing for two years before he led the police to her remains (we could be back in a year or two debating whether the film/discovery channel documentary is notable!) XyzSpaniel Talk Page 21:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply being a on death row in not notable, nor does it even rate as a claim of significance much like "Bob is an author" is not. As it stands the article is a one line, wholely negative BLP and should not be here. The one source used merely mentions him in passing as someone who is up for execution after a court ruling - just his name - no context, nothing. If it is further developed I will reconsider but as it stands this is a wholely negative BLP that is poorly sourced. Jbh ^Talk 00:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator, I originally went with weak keep. But after further thought I am shifting to delete. This is Wikipedia, not Murderpedia. The fact that the individual is on death row is not a defining event for notability. There seems to be some notability around events involving the victim. In that case, an article Murder of "Victim's Name" might be appropriate. I am going to invoke WP:BLP1E. Additionally, article is a very poorly sourced, wholly negative, BLP. It does not strictly fall under the requirements of WP:CSD G10 as a negative unsourced BLP, but I think the poor sourcing creates a strong presumption in favor of deletion. Safiel (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing causes this individual and the coverage of him to rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 9 November 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 via criterion A1. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 20:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Broke & Broken[edit]

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

Finding no coverage in reliable sources for this series; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Borderline WP:NONSENSE and certainly WP:NOCONTEXT. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A1. Looks like I'm about to tag it. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Romal Arian[edit]

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

Per source searches, this musician and video director has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anyone even mentioning his music by name except music distribution services and his own Youtube account. The last line of the "Career" section gives away the blatant WP:PROMO. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally non-notable person. There is not even a single independent reliable source having a passing mention of him. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:CREATIVE. Anup [Talk] 21:42, 5 November 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) 11:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Louise Sunderland Hosterman[edit]

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

Per source searches, this subject has received no coverage in independent, reliable sources; does not meet WP:BASIC to qualify for an article, and finding no indication of the subject meeting WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm not sure where the nominator was looking, but the artist has been profiled in a book published by an established publisher and she has several works in major public collections. Meets WP:NARTIST. She's also mentioned in a general book about West Virginia as "the state's ranking still-life and flower composition artist", I've added this to the article. If she was still active I'd expect more coverage online, but this artist died 26 years ago at a ripe age, there are likely to be offline sources somewhere too. Sionk (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed: she passes NARTIST, as per Sionk. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:38, 7 November 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judai[edit]

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

Source searches are providing no significant coverage to qualify an article; does not meet aspects of WP:NFILM and does not meet WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search (google.ie) brings up a site to view the film online (which I can't do from my own country), the WP article and very little else of substance out there to make it a notable production XyzSpaniel Talk Page 18:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MOVIE. Nothing helpful turned up on Gnews. Anup [Talk] 14:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Wood[edit]

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

Per source searches, this musician has received no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article; does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is even borderline A7. The references provided are either unreliable sources or sources that have nothing to do with the subject. Pichpich (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was about to say exactly the same thing at Pichpich. Young peope seem to think they only need to upload things to Youtube/ITunes to be famous. It doesn't (usually) work like that, fortunately. Sionk (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 03:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from the Heart (Ethan Wood Album)[edit]

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

Per source searches, this debut album has received no significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article, thus not meeting WP:GNG. The album also does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, bordering on speedy deletion criteria, cited only to social media. No claims or hints of notability. Sionk (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant media coverage, hasn't charted. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:23, 6 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Loves Stories[edit]

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

Per source searches and source analysis, the depth of coverage this company has received is not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Thank you for AfD. As per my first finding and note on Talk page/ A7 Material. only here to promote. Zero Encyclopedic Value. Light2021 (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 5 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RDF query language[edit]

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

It doesn't seem worthwhile to have a page about the generic concept of RDF query languages, since SPARQL (or, if you prefer SPARQL/SPARUL) has been the dominant such language since nearly the beginning. No other RDF query language has an article on the English Wikipedia, for what it's worth. All of the limited information on this page can - and already does - fit into the Resource Description Framework article. (By the way, "RDF query language" should not be confused with RDQL, which stands for "RDF Query Language", a specific - though not widely-used - such language.) Yaron K. (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Yes, SPARQL is the "dominant" query language. A qualifier which, by its very form, indicates that this is a broader topic. You clearly want rid of the article though, previously you were trying to merge it to the RDF article - where space would be an issue.

Yet again, I fail to see why WP is always so hostile to SemWeb topics? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by space being an issue, given that, as I noted, the main RDF article already holds basically all the information contained in the "RDF query language" article. As for why a lot of Semantic Web-related articles have gotten deleted: this is out of the scope of discussion, and I can only speak for myself, but my view is that, from 2006 to 2010 or so, a lot of people got excited about the Semantic Web and wrote a lot of articles containing redundant, contradictory and irrelevant information, and speculative musings, that resulted in much more content than was (or is) justified. Perhaps the worst-offending articles have already been deleted, but you can see Social Semantic Web for a prime example of what I'm talking about. Yaron K. (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom has given no policy-based reason why this should be deleted. A policy-based reason for keeping the article is provided by a quick WP:BEFORE style search that shows multiple independent reliable sources that discuss RDF query languages in depth, e.g.,:

A Comparison of RDF Query Languages
Web and semantic web query languages: a survey
RDF Querying: Language Constructs and Evaluation Methods Compared
W3C RDF Query Survey

Reading through some of these shows that SPARQL, while a popular RDF query language at the moment, represents but one branch of of the RDF query language tree. With the sources above, the topic well passes notability thresholds per WP:GNG. The article itself could use more development and better sourcing. But with the sources above and others not listed, the article has WP:POTENTIAL for improvement. A notable topic and an article with WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to get nitpicky, but all of these comparisons you linked to are from 2006 or earlier - which is not surprising, since that was right before SPARQL started to dominate the field. Of course, just because (say) SeRQL is no longer in use doesn't mean that it shouldn't get mentioned, but there's clearly only a limited amount of notable-for-Wikipedia information about the SeRQLs of the world. If you want a policy-based reason, how about WP:NOPAGE? This to me seems like a case where we have to "weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." Yaron K. (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the sources are older is no strike against them; they are still independent, reliable sources. Because of this, notability of the family of RDF query languages is not temporary, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. We should not simply discard the historical development of the topic for the newest shiny, per WP:RECENTISM. While SPARQL should be given due weight, the sources above show there is plenty to say about RDF query languages in general. We're going to have to disagree about WP:NOPAGE. Based on the sources, there is no reason that this could not develop into a larger article. --Mark viking (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly know about NOTTEMPORARY; my point was just that there's not much more to be said about any of these query languages. Clearly we disagree on that. Yaron K. (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I must be getting old. I remember when there was no SPARQL and everyone was implementing and using RDQL, iTQL, and SPO, in notable applications like Fedora Commons (I think they have dropped RDQL, but still had iTQL and SPO last time I checked, because they are easy languages unlike SPARQL). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article basically acts as de-facto disambig/list page for the various RDF query languages. RDF query language is a notable concept and the page serves as guidance. SPARQL is not only one RDF Query language there exist others. The notability of this concept is proofed by a simple Google scholar search with thousands of result and its own w3 specification. There are other RDF Query languages researched/developed in the scientific community. The term is clearly used in scholary discussions ad papers to describe query languages for RDF Data. This way the subject satisfies WP:GNG and the guidelines in WP:LISTN and WP:DPAGE. That only few other RDF query languages have a WP article is not relevant per the aforementioned guidelines. The article should therefore be kept. Dead Mary (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slight correction: no other RDF query languages have a WP article. Yaron K. (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thats right, no true one. But my argument still stands. I also think at least RDQL (currently a redirect to this article) could also warrant an own article, as it is pretty notable too. Dead Mary (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added some actual RDF Query languages in the article + source. Dead Mary (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article a good bit beyond the stub it was and added secondary sources. --Mark viking (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I think based on the academic sources which have been linked here and have now been inserted into the article it should be clear that this is a notable subject discussed in plenty of academic journals and publications. Dead Mary (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the edits since nomination? Sandstein 18:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability does not go away with time, even in computer science. Something notable in 2006 (as shown by sources) is notable now (with those same "old" sources). Just because one language became dominant doesn't mean we should ignore everything else and the history of language development. The article currently has material (with sources) for the properties of these languages and the language families. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:28, 7 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Expert[edit]

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

Per source searches, this television series does not meet WP:GNG because it has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In HK only very popular shows get Season 2, like most aTV dramas dubbed in Mandarin for mainland/Taiwan markets, also broadcast in Japan (see ja.wiki article), really seeing no reason to delete. Timmyshin (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its features a famous Hong Kong actor and is mentioned in "Gwailo's Guide to Hong Kong Horror". Thanks Kelvin 101 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The show could very well be popular and have a famous actor in it, but I'm still not finding any evidence that the show is notable per Wikipedia's notability standards, such as having received significant coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep given the breadth of sources on the article. Deryck C. 10:32, 8 November 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 WP:G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement of content at http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=3783. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemable Tax Deed[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE, no indication that this subject is notable enough for its own article LynxTufts (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Delete - G12 Copyright violation of http://www.electricarticles.com/display.aspx?id=3783 Crow^Caw 16:59, 3 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

Dominican Commercial High School[edit]

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

I had trouble getting this article to satisfy the general notability guidelines or organization/company notability guidelines. References in the article and those found online simply have a passing mention to the school or cannot be considered reliably sourced. Garchy (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I'm not one to fight a fight just for fighting's sake, I am definitely satisfied with the comments below as well as the citations and references that have been added since nomination. Garchy (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Passes WP:ORGCRITE and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES (Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists.). BlackAmerican (talk) 17:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please find sources that verify that this institution was in fact "independently accredited" or a "degree-awarding institution" - per the AFD, none of these sources have been located upon search. Garchy (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

your nomination is already a delete vote. I changed it to comment. With that, it says "and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent resources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The school has been proven to exist, and the sources are independent. Thus snow keep. BlackAmerican (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you are referencing is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline; it is intended to be an explanatory supplement. This simply explains the likely outcomes of an AFD, it's not to be used specifically to decide them, or to be used as policy. The sources you have provided on the page do not appear reliable - others simply name the school in a list or directory, which is not a criteria for establishing notability. As the guideline you provide states, "The current notability guidelines for schools and other education institutions are Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N), Wikipedia:Notability (geography) (WP:NGEO) and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (WP:ORG)." - THIS is what this is being challenged on. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments since you added a sentence to your comment above referencing this guideline - WP:ORGCRITE - as stated numerous times above, this is being challenged under the WP:RELIABLE - "Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Other than passing mentions or mentions on government lists I cannot find reliable sources for this school. Waiting for comments from others. Garchy (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Other defunct NYC high schools have been deemed wiki worthy. Nothing in the article indicates this school is less worthy of inclusion. If need be, add a stub tag and on the talk page, mention what you think needs to be added. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just because other defunt NYC high schools have Wiki pages does not mean this school is notable. Focusing on the article alone, and the references and citations related to it, (as well as my own online searches), there is not enough information on this topic to deem an article worthy. Garchy (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a sizeable school that lasted for decades and even has at least one famous alumna. Sources exist: I added a couple that I found in a quick look through a few pages of the 250+ results shown in a search of Newspapers.com. No reason to vary from our uniformly observed standard practice to keep articles about such schools, as described in WP:OUTCOMES.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:25, 4 November 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 A7. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Anthony Cruz[edit]

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

Unsourced article with no reliable 3rd party sources found establishing notability. Cotton2 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 -- no sources, no claim of notability, and judging by the username of the creator, probably an autobio. --Finngall ^talk 18:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably doesn't fit A7, but still completely non-notable. ansh 666 19:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it doesn't meet CSD A7, it does meet WP:BLPPROD. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete My google searches lead to an article mentioning a 7th grader in Milwaukie Oregon who is part of a larger group of middle school students trying to get permission to create a mural. The total lack of any sources at all requires quick deletion of this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no claim of importance, let alone notability. 13:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh please--waste of time. If y'all want to say "speedy delete", then tag it. I'm taking care of this. A7. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divide By Zero (company)[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 (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Magioladitis (creator) with the following rationale "Company produced 5 games all notable, send to AfD in necessary. Probably PC games epxerts can find referneces to PC magazines about the company". Well, if they can, great, but I couldn't (and neither could the creator, obviously). And if there are no refs, producing 5 video games is no better then producing 10 designs of sofas of 3 variations of a top hat - none of which is enough to satisfy any notability policy, I am afraid. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any significant references to establish Notability. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 16:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it inconsistent to have pages for notable games produced by a company that won't have page on Wikipedia. I am pretty sure that there will be offline references to the company. Not having online material for a company that was disestablished in 1996 is something expected. Wikipedia should ot rely only on online references. A even found something here I guess [3]. There are more online references: [4], [5]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is, unfortunately, not a valid argument. And sadly, out of the three you found, I see a niche unreliable site, a 403 error, and no Google Books preview, so not much to convince me to change my mind. And yes, back then there would be fewer sources, rarely digitized, but unless we can find them, well, we cannot AGF their existence. If no sources can be found, the article cannot stay. Oh, and making notable products does not make a company notable - notability is not inherited and we are not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherited. Either there is significant coverage of the company or there isn't. Honestly, the company's history can be handled in the development section of any of the individual game articles. A redirect there would suffice. Old sources could exist, but now would be the time to show your work. Alternatively, there would be a case for keeping the article if the child game articles were to be merged up to the parent (some have reviews listed in MobyGames but others don't). In that way, the parent article would serve as a container, even if there isn't independent coverage about its activities. czar 22:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I meant to comment sooner, as I concur with the nomination and how the concerns of advertising and no signs of independent notability outweigh anything else otherwise. The 1 Keep vote above has not substantiated any convincing sources, let alone any sources that may be genuinely notable. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic People's Party of Ireland[edit]

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

Non-notable political organisation. As it currently stands, it is solely self-referencing to a WP:PRIMARY source and consists of only of a list of policies, in the face of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Also fails the primary criteria, as it has neither a depth of coverage, a broad audience, or independent sources. A WP:BEFORE search shows nothing beyond (apart from itself) Facebook, blogs, forums and YouTube (pages 1, 2 and 3). Ultimately it has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so fails basic WP:GNG. _Muffled ^Pocketed 14:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable political party that have never even stood for a position of any kind, never mind won one. Anyone can start a website, which is the only source on the article. The only real attention they received was being a group of people opposing the building of a mosque in some small irish town back in 2015 [6], and then they tried to start a party of the back of this. Completely fails WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ran a a news search [7], no notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a tiny Rightist party. We are a charity not a free webhost for political parties. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 15 November 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 Yes Network. Notability not established, despite ILIKEIT and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. Article history still available if there is any sourced content that should be merged to the target article. Randykitty (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Newman[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. ProQuest only turns up one news article that can be considered significant coverage in the course of a 25+ year career. Only significant coverage from Google is interviews with blogs and biography pages from employers. Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with the need for reliable, independent sources when discussing a public figure who has been on television for, as you mentioned, 25+ years. She exists, even if there is little external coverage about it. Milchama (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notability requires verifiable evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep articles about people just because they exist — people are still highly vulnerable to having false or damaging or libellous information inserted into their articles. Notability on Wikipedia, rather, is always conditional on being the subject of reliable source coverage, and no topic ever gets an exemption from that. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 15:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 15:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easily notable. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Based on what evidence? --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Existence does not automatically equate to notability, but the level of reliable sourcing required to get her from existence to notability has not been shown. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to YES Network where she is listed. Spanneraol (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yes Network per Spanneraol seems to be the appropriate approach if signifciant coverage cannot be found. Rlendog (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All but four of the currently listed 22 on-air staff (as per the navigational template) have dedicated articles, including some that I understand to be in a more junior role than Ms Newman. In my mind, if this article is to be redirected to the network, a joint nomination of all these articles makes a lot more sense. Samsara 23:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what kind of coverage the other subjects have. Certainly some YES on-air staff has received more coverage than Nancy Newman. Rlendog (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it depends on their notability. Let me give you an example. The Abrahamic God is attested in only a single source considered by some to be dubious, and all other works are purely derivative and hence not independently reliable. However, on Wikipedia, a large number of articles are dedicated to him, and rightly so. Why? Because in spite of the meagre coverage, he (or she, if you wish to go that road) is highly notable. Coverage and notability are not the same thing. Moreover, two or three source articles more about one subject than another is not even a statistically significant difference. I'll repeat: source-counting does not give a definitive answer to the question of notability. Samsara 21:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability almost always depends on coverage. The Abrahamic God may only be attested to in one primary source, but is also covered in many secondary sources. Rlendog (talk) 02:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be misunderstanding how sourcing works, because the secondary sources count for more toward notability than the primary source does: anybody can publish their own primary source evidence of their existence, such as a website or a manifesto or a bible or a LinkedIn résumé, but notability is a factor of the degree to which other people are or aren't influenced to write "derivative" works about that primary person's impact on everybody else. The Abrahamic God, in other words, does not have an article because he published primary source proof of his own existence; he has an article because of all the ink that's been deployed by other people in the next 2,000+ years about the impact that his document has had on everything that's happened since he published it. And it works the same way for television sportscasters, too: the ability to point to her employer's website (or her own) as proof that she exists is not what gets her an article. The existence of media coverage about her career, in sources independent of her, is. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're on an extreme tangent now, as primary sources were never part of the specific discussion regarding Ms Newman. The problem with the source-counting approach so many of you seem to be advocating is that it's very easy to be "inspired" to publish a news item by another news item you have seen. I refer you to the Matthew effect. Biographical monographs are always more compelling, and, look, none of the presenters of this network have them. And none of what you have written in any way even touches my point that one or even three sources more for one person do not establish greater notability by any rational, i.e. statistical, analysis - and that's about the number by which these various presenters differ from one another. And by bringing up self-published sources, you are actually corroborating my point - sources are not all equal, and by simply counting them, one can quickly get confused about this. Samsara 22:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make some further points regarding your reply:

I never made the argument that her existence was enough to justify an article. I find it unkind and unprofessional of you to imply that I did. The point I did make is that whatever the outcome of this debate, it's likely her colleagues' articles deserve the same fate.
Three out of the four sources used in her article are not, as far as I can see, published by an employer, past or present, or herself. If you have further information on this aspect, let's please see it rather than making awkward hints about it. Samsara 22:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to the network page. Working journalist who lacks sufficient reliable, secondary source coverage to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fleming (philosophy)[edit]

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

Subject is only a senior lecturer and his work does not seem to be widely cited or significant enough in his field to pass WP:PROF. References are to works he authored. Nothing to indicate he passes the general notability guidelines either. Jbh ^Talk 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 14:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: There are numerous other Senior Lecturers included in Wikipedia (even from the same institution!). The title "Senior Lecturer" bears no necessary relationship to a scholar's output. (Many well-known authors are sometimes just "Adjunct Faculty.") Secondly, it is simply untrue that the article refers only to Flemming's own work. This is simply a factual error. As for the quality and impact of Fleming's work, one should perhaps investigate the references listed. Two of his books have been described as the best in their field. Eric Gans (Distinguished Professor, UCLA) made the claim that Fleming's book on Girard was "clearly the best". The book on conspiracy theory is co-written with Emma Jane, a Commonwealth Writers Prize-winning author in her own right. With respect to this book, Professor Andrew McKenna reviewed it and remarked "This opulently researched book is probably the only one you need to read on this topic." Finally, if the case for the regard of his work needs any more emphasis, Rene Girard, one of the premier intellectuals of the 20th century, Stanford Professor and "immortal" of the French Academy wrote of Fleming's work on mimetic theory that it was "uniquely profound,” “amazingly well-informed,” “the most lucid, efficient and up-to-date discussion of the subject I have ever encountered,” “original and powerful,” and “remarkable” (among other things). That book is now recommended in Girard’s own published work (in Girard's book "Mimesis and Theory," for instance, the book is referred to (again) as "the best overall" (p. 294), and is the only English-language reference to Girard in the prestigious Dictionnaire des sciences humaines. Other work of Flemings has been cited in (looking quickly) Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Angelaki, Contagion, Dialogue, International Journal of Cultural Studies, the Oxford Literary Review, Shakespeare, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, and Philosophy & Rhetoric. According to Academia.edu, Fleming is in the top 2% of scholars on that website read or searched-for online. I am able to cite many cases of scholars online that do not really approach this. I could probably gather more data from Dr Fleming himself, but he'd probably say "Oh, forget about it!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer (talk • contribs) 14:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC) — EggplantDancer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

do you have a connection to Chris Fleming? LibStar (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In what context were those comments made? They sound like jacket notes or similar. Material associated with publishers PR and the like does not contribute to notability. If these comments were made in things like independent articles or journal book reviews they would be more indicative of notability.
References 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 all list him as an author. Reference 3 lists several works which, per the statement it is attached to, seem to be "his work on Rene Gerard" ie material he wrote. What I do not see are any works about Chris Fleming rather than by Chris Fleming. That is what would be needed to get him over the general notability requirements. To get him over the notability requirements for academics we would need to show a very high citation rate for several of his works, many reviews of his works in journals, others doing works on him, an appointment to something equivalent to the Royal Society or National Academy of Sciences. I simply can not find such sources but should they be presented I would happily withdraw this nomination.
(Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.)
Jbh ^Talk 18:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (If only peacocks crowed at sunup, I would keep them and eat my chickens, instead of the other way around.) This is borderline refbomb, most of the cites don't actually have anything to do with the subject, they're just plugs for things the subject has himself referenced. They do nothing to support the article, with the exception of #2, which is another non-notable author mentioning him by name. Finally, EggplantDancer's fervor and single-mindedness in promoting Fleming speak for themselves as clear COI. Why he won't cite any of these vaguely-referenced independent sources in the article is anyone's guess. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 21:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the "fervour." I'm an ex-PhD student of his, and I'd seen that people such as Mireille Astore and Diego Bubbio and a whole bunch of other people had pages and felt some kind of loyalty. That's the truth. But, of course, I'm happy to let this one drop. I'm a newcomer to writing for Wikipedia and so may have got things terribly wrong - it wouldn't be the first time I've got things terribly wrong! I'm worried that further defences will simply be seen as irrational outbursts. Apologies if I've wasted people's time. Obviously, I think he's worth including, but won't take up more airtime trying to establish that, and wasting others' time doing so. EggPlant — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(By comparison, I was looking at the profiles of Diego Bubbio and Dimitris Vardoulakis - and I can name innumerable others from other institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer (talk • contribs) 01:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be really interested in the difference between Fleming's profile and the others which are seemingly comparable, and - in some cases - less notable. Could someone clarify here to help a newcomer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EggplantDancer (talk • contribs) 01:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On very brief examination it looks like Mireille Astore has a lot of coverage in reliable sources and Diego Bubbio may be candidate for a deletion discussion. You may want to read the notability criteria referred to in the nomination statement (WP:GNG and WP:PROF) to get a better idea of how notability is judged on Wikipedia. (Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. This will insert your user name and a time stamp when you save the page.) Jbh ^Talk 02:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Re. Store's "reliable coverage" (which I must admit amuses me somewhat), Fleming has been repeatedly interviewed in the international media (Reuters, ABC, etc.) - so this would be helpful to list to preserve the case, or have we now decided that the case is hopeless? And what of Dimitris Vardoulakis? (I'll cease raising cases like these, because I have no wish to have others deleted, but Fleming's case is very far from atypical, and it's odd that this is being subject to scrutiny to a degree that others simply aren't - but I guess nobody expects Wikipedia to be "objective" in any strict sense. Apologies about the sign-offs. I think this is how one does it: EggplantDancer (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases interviews may help show notability, it really depends on the source and the context. In general, for notability, what we are looking for is coverage in independent third party, reliable sources. Follow the blue links because they describe what the Wikipedia meaning of those terms is, which is not necessarily the common usage meaning.

In the articles mentioned above I did not did into the sources so I can not speak to how well they hold up. Academics are among the hardest people to write Wikipedia biographies for because they do not often get a lot of press coverage. Generally the notability criteria are only fulfilled by late career academics. As I said earlier, Royal Society members and the like, holders of named chairs, Field's Medal winners and Nobel Lauriates or, as is often the case, those whose impact can be shown by having many highly cited works. What "many" and "highly cited" means depends on their field of study.

Also, please note that while it can be difficult for new users to accept, articles are always judged on how they stack up against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not against other articles. This is so common that there is even a page which explains it - WP:OTHERSTUFF. I hope this helps some. Jbh ^Talk 03:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fantastically informative - I appreciate the time you've taken to spell this out, and apologies for the lag in my understanding. I'll have another go at sourcing sourcing information in the next few days and then simply leave it at that.I've been misled, partly because I've read dozens of pages where the thinkers listed were - in fact - lesser know and cited. Again, much thanks. EggplantDancer (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EggplantDancer: I looked over the sources you added. He does get a lot of interviews which can be a good indicator of notability. However it can also be an indicator of good PR, which is why interviews are generally considered WP:PRIMARY sources. Have you found even one article where an independent third party writes about him/his work? Right now I am moving towards neutral on the question of deletion. I will read the sources you added in more detail as I have time but an indepenant third party source or two would help me get from toss up/weak delete to keep. Biographies, in my opinion, need to be based on sources which discuss the person rather than simply quote them.

Also, you will notice I have been adjusting the indent level of your replies. Talk page comments are indented/threaded to make the conversation easier to follow. This brief tutorial on editing talk pages explains how to do that. Jbh ^Talk 13:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that may discuss him Conspiracy Theory and its Discontents Britain and the World, Aug 2014, vo. 7, No. 2 : pp. 169-173 but I do not have easy access to that journal. Do you? Jbh ^Talk 13:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 4 is far WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks again, everyone. I'm loathe to raise it again, but I've randomly just found 11 people with lower h-index scores of people on Wikipedia, simply because this was supposedly a "knock down" comment just made. And yes, there's an editorial in Britain and the World which deals with Fleming's conspiracy book which I've left out, along with a bunch of other stuff, because I feel like the verdict has already been reached and nothing now could be said to reverse it, given the "fervour" of the rebuttals: "If only peacocks crowed at sunup, I would keep them and eat my chickens" says the person who accuses me of fervour. But I've put in more references, and there's many more that I could, but given that there's no consistency in how any of the criteria have been applied about "notability" - given the many examples that are easy enough to find which are far less notable, it seems pointless. ("Ah yes, the reference here in Girard's own book Mimesis and Theory says that Fleming's work is 'easily the best" book on mimetic theory,' but this is simply...um...not notable enough, you see - we must go with our objective criteria; we are very objective here"). Is this sour grapes on my behalf? Almost certainly - again, I have an agenda, no doubt about it. The point has been made above that it's not about other entries, but the fact is, if these are included (and the one's I mentioned have not been marked for deletion), then any reference to "criteria" are utterly irrelevant. (If a teacher says "you failed the exam" and you then find people who score lower than yourself and who also pass that exam, and you bring this fact to the examiner's attention, is it adequate for the examiner to say "Ah! But it's not about THEM and THEIR scores, it's about YOU and the relevant criteria?" Hardly, it seems that the term "criteria" here is so ectoplasmic that it can include - or exclude - whomever, depending on the day or the preferences of the examiner. Again, I'm beholden to my own agenda here, and I'm not hiding it (I'm one of those fawning ex-students) - but who comes to anything without an agenda? Certainly not this. Epistemologically, this is an enormously interesting area in itself (my PhD is in epistemology), and something itself worth writing about. But I now know that it doesn't really matter about the evidence I bring to bear on this. It's a pity, but the profile should probably come down sooner rather than later - it coming down later only implies a form of rational adjudication at work that is there only in name. NB. I do really appreciate people's time in explaining things to me; I feel very strongly about this, about everyone's generosity with their time and their patience with me when I've obviously been irritating; I have no desire to go on bugging anyone. I suspect, though, that Wikipedia authoring is probably best left to others, people more sympathetic to its particular form of rigour. I may well be wrong about all of this - I continue to be wrong about many things! - but I can't (yet) see how. Perhaps I should just make contributions by adding or subtracting small bits of info to (or correcting grammar of) existing pages. I'm probably too unskilled at this point to do much more than this; I was thinking of adding a page on Paul Dumouchel, but now I'm going to back away. Last Q: Why can't we just bring the page down today? EggplantDancer (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate them for deletion then. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as certainly nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 04:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because I think - at this stage - it's by far the funniest thing to do. EggplantDancer (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. In my experience very long winded defences for keep are often a sign of conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One well-cited paper in his scholar profile [8], and being in on the founding of a non-notable local and specialized academic society, are not enough for WP:PROF, and there seems nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My apologies - it was my first entry on Wikipedia and I let loyalty to my supervisor lead me astray. Sorry for taking up people's time with the assessment. I'll get more familiar with the policies in future. EggplantDancer (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tompkins[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Article (clearly promotional) claims he has a painting in The White House and that he is considered America's greatest pencil artist. I couldn't verify either claim. Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ancient article written by the subject. No assertion of notability and no real activity for years. IP editors come in every once in a while to add more unsourced fluff like "Lee Tomkins has a painting in the White House", suggesting that this guy is still editing his own page. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unsourced vanity page; nothing stands out about this artist. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Simon[edit]

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

Simon doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged for notability for over 8 years now, hopefully we can resolve it now. Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find evidence that any of the referenced magazines actually exist. There's "The Artist's Magazine" which has a web presence but never mentions her. Every other mention is just a Wikipedia mirror. This is a good example of WP being used to game search engines, even if that wasn't the intent. The article creator is still somewhat active after all these years. I'd like to see what RoadNotTaken has to say, since they might have hard copies of the sources. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unsourced vanity page on an unremarkable artist. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National University of Technology and Skills Development (NUTECH) , Rawat[edit]

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

Quote: "The newly built university is in completion phase". So probably is not notable yet: WP:TOOSOON. XXN, 19:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcesJessie1979 (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the above vote from a confirmed sockpuppet. -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Currently it appears to be nothing more than a building under-construction. Let the construction works be complete and the university to start programs and get coverage in few independent reliable sources. Anup [Talk] 14:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly a WP:TOOSOON situation. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DEL7 with WP:IAR. Article has no sources, so requires a complete rewrite at best. Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 13 November 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bagla Hills mine[edit]

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

No such mine exists AFAIK. See Bagla Hills for the sordid details. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The present content is unsuitable and Bagla Hills covers the matter rather well. Possibly there should be a redirect if it is a useful search term but I expect anyone interested in the "mine" would find it just as easily without. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen that the nominator here went on to improve the main article so I'll record my thanks for that. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main article is sufficient. I guess this can be deleted and I don't see the need to leave a redirect hanging behind. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:01, 9 November 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 20:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG, WP:GNG or any other aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Although it has sources such as NY Times and USA Today, those articles do not mention this organisation. This has been tagged for notability for over 8 years, hopefully we can get it resolved now. Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for starting this, Boleyn. It has definitely languished in a very poor state for too long. But I believe I've found enough reliable sources discussing the organization and its activities (rather than just citing its works) to meet the GNG, including articles in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Dallas Morning News. I've put those in the article, and done a ton of cleanup as well.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I'm convinced by Neil that it scrapes GNG. Thanks for your hard work, Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 4 November 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 especially considering the nom and first delete !vote did not re-comment after Czar presented more sources ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jinx (clothing)[edit]

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

Inadequate references for notability The references are insubstantial or promotional. The wired one, which is the best, is nonetheless written as an advertorial. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the existing sources demonstrate any real notability or wider cultural impact. I'm genuinely surprised at how fawning the tone of that Wired piece is. Another source is Yellow Rat Bastard Magazine, which is the house magazine from a NY retail outlet and can't be considered a reliable source. A Train^talk 08:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No opinion on YRB but there are plenty of sources on this topic. First, Wired is a reliable source, full stop, and it indisputably goes into depth on the topic. More come from the video game reliable sources custom Google search, mainly prominent announcements: [9][10][11][12][13][14]. The announcements on their own are fluffy, but in terms of the mainstream gaming press, there is enough interest demonstrated (and sources to back up) the clothing line's notability. czar 05:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frustratingly, news about merchandising companies will almost always be PR. Even though the sources are PR, they are PR about customer-facing deals with several high-profile companies, which lends notability in a different way. 157.235.66.80 (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanderbilt New York[edit]

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

Small store with four locations. Nothing indicating notability. Fails WP:GNG. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just opened; seems merely like a several-store showroom for the company's licensed brands than a functioning chain which hopes to expand. Nate • (chatter) 19:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company was launched on October 1 2016 in Thailand, at BLÚPORT Hua Hin owned by The Mall Group, with three further stores opened at Emporium, Central Westgate, and Central Bangna owned by the Central Group over the following two weeks. This is a newly opened showroom from the looks of it. While the creator is notable, the showroom doesn't inherit that notability. I do not see enough sources for the showroom itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as solely advertising alone and the fact itself has no actual claims of significance either. SwisterTwister talk 20:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommie Earl Jenkins[edit]

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

He doesn't meet WP:GNG and I don't think his credits meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. The sources in the article are his own publicity, many IMDb pages, and cast listings. Largoplazo (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Tommie Earl Jenkins (as per WP:GNG ) has both had significant roles in stage performances and has a wide cult following because of his voice work as Ubercorn. Moreover, he is a well-known narrator, especially the documentaries associated with Roots. He is not "up and coming", he is established. Terngirl (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found no evidence of him having a "wide cult following" or of him being "a well-known narrator" in independent reliable sources. Can you supply some? Largoplazo (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keith (band)[edit]

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

Deleted once before. Arguably meets WP:NBAND #9 for that "Road to V" co-award, but coverage is sparse and short on detail: most statements in the article cannot be independently verified. Could go either way, but I look at NBAND's "may be notable if" and note that "may be" doesn't mean "is". —swpb^T 15:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 20:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 14:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 09:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPFC[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 (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "This is an internet standard, thus notable. However, the article needs work.". Doh that last part, but I am not aware of any policy that states that Internet standards are notable. Like everything else, they need to meet said guidelines, and I don't see how this stub does it. Further, I don't see sources that discuss this topic in-depth. At best I can see this redirected to some list. Not merged, because there is no content to speak of. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Fibre Channel ~~or just delete.~~ Might be useful as a search term, but maybe not enough for a stand-alone topic. There are hundreds of "standards" every year that do not catch on, and that alone is not enough. Someone outside the "standards" group needs to notice it. However, at least the mention needs to be made in the Fibre Channel article and does not appear to be now. Instead the article is just a summary of the FC protocol, and Wikipedia should not just be yet another standards document repository. W Nowicki (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, this standard as been around 17 years. RFC 2625.. The standard was updated to RFC 4338. It did catch on. Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article and have added 7 reliable sources, six books and one authoritative RFC. --Mark viking (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Mark viking, there are plenty of refs. A quick Google book search shows a tonne of books. It meets GNG. This standard as been around 17 years via RFC 2625. The standard was updated to RFC 4338. It's used in in every server farm. Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in few books (as listed in references). Not that broad coverage as I would like, but still sufficient to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 15:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In expanding this article, I was able to find six books that were independent, reliable sources for the protocol and standard. There is enough content among those to have written a (currently) modest article on the topic and to pass notability thresholds per WP:GNG. A notable topic and an article with no major structural problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure, close it out and keep 'em. Definitely should be mentioned somewhere. Should go in the body of the parent article perhaps, instead of just the "see also". Probably Fibre Channel Protocol too? Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a merge, just the proposed deletion. I agree that it may be useful or better to discuss IPFC in some FC networking protocol context. Until a merge happens, I think this article can stand alone as a well-reference stub. --Mark viking (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. I find User:Mark viking's expansion and sources used sufficient to address my concerns. No objection to merge if this is the consensus, though. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CCAPS[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 (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "There are alot of valid refs out there for this". Sadly, singe he couldn't be bothered to add them to this unrefereced articles, and I don't see anything other then a passing mention, we ended up here. If anyone can find any refs that helps this meet GNG, by showing the significance of this software (not just a passing mentions that it exists), please note this here, and explain why should we have this minor piece of code in our encyclopedia. It has benefited the company which created it, and whose representative added it here (WP:SPA, WP:COI: User:Volomike~enwiki) enough over the past 10 years. Such spam should be speedied, not end up here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the one web link does not work, and searches do not turn up much of anything, so appears it never caught on. This is not an acronym encyclopedia anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 19 November 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. Redirects can be recreated at editorial discretion. If Farsi sources support notability, the article can be recreated, but due to the copyright issues about this text probably not from the current text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tehran[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 (organizations) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "Colleges at major universities are usually notable, but not all. This never should have been proded. Use AfD instead". Well, to that I can reply that declining topics that clearly fail GNG and forcing us to waste time here is what should never been done. Anyway, what we have here is your run-of-the-mill not-notable university department/college. It cites no non-primary sources, and I do not see any work that would discuss it in depth, or even mention it as an important school. With WP:PEACOCK wording like "The faculty is doubtlessly the backbone of veterinary research and education in Iran" this is just (doubtlessly) university-department promoting spam that should have been speedied, not end up wasting our time here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note Please keep to the facts and not editorialize. Giving out digs doesn't help. As this is a non-English subject and Iranian to boot, I doubt there would be many English refs. This needs help of a Farsi speaker. Bgwhite (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per TNT. Blatantly promotional, no independent sourcing and actually just copied from their website. Would need to be rewritten from scratch. Jytdog (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Tehran, or weak delete This might be the only college of veterinary medicine in Iran, so as such is notable. I've often noted that it is important to distinguish between notability and content quality. That said, this one has nothing left if it's a copy-paste and probably no one is going to do a WP:HEY to save it at the moment. We would need Farsi sources to determine importance and content, which no one seems in a position to do now, but preserving the redirect (and probably revdel all revisions due to copyvio) will make it easier to spin out the article into something useful down the road. Montanabw^(talk) 03:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the copyvio, I'd go for delete and create a fresh redirect to University of Tehran. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:00, 12 November 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) 10:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Right Thing (podcast)[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 (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "plenty of refs for this, including newspaper articles.". I'd like to see that "plenty of refs". The only one I see is the linked newspaper ref, which while from quality ref, is de facto just one paragraph-worth review of this podcast. I don't think that one paragraph review in an article, even in a reliable newspaper, is enough for the podcast to be notable. This doesn't meet neither the in-depth coverage requirement, nor one for multiple sources. As such, I can't agree this podcast is notable. PS. Ping User:RA0808 who nominated this for speedy before I prodded it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of refs, [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]
The show won a Sony Award in 2012 for Best Internet Programme. The Sony Award is the top award for British radio programming. It was also nominated for a Chortle Award. I do not know if these satisfy WP:WEBCRIT. The show will be filming a TV pilot this month. Bgwhite (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purple minutes[edit]

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

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. Since it was prodded (by User:The Anome) and deprodded before (by the creator User:Diverman who wrote way back in 2007: "this article was created as part of the WP:HOT project. i.e. there was a request to create it". Well, 10 years down the road it still looks like it did back them, this is I am sorry to say like a spammy neologism that fails GNG. I couldn't find any sources that woudl convince me otherwise, I am afraid. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as essentially speedy material and there's nothing at all for substance and notability whatsoever so that seems to be the honesty, enough time passed also for any sufficient improvements but none happened. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material and no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article was created in good faith, but this seems to be a neologism that never gained currency in independent sources. Without independent RS, even a merge or redirect wouldn't be justified. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 20:20, 8 November 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 StudioCanal#Background. Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Capital Entertainment[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 (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bgwhite with the following rationale "Plenty of refs out there". Unfortunately, I don't see those refs - there are some mentions in passing, press releases, directory entries, and the usual assorted spam, but nothing that seems to pass cited policies. Perhaps BGwwhite will be kind enough to list and discuss those refs here (and let me repeat - discuss, not just list - please explain why those refs you found are quality refs). As far as I am concerned, as I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see some routine announcement coverage (two items now added as references). However these are more about StudioCanal than the firm which intermediated the finance. I don't feel they provide the coverage needed to demonstrate its notability - a selective merge to mention the financing deal at StudioCanal#Background may be the most that is merited? AllyD (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to that article would certainly be a valid compromise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I do see plenty of valid refs to keep. However, as it is now owned by StudioCanal and a small article, a merge/redirect would be best. Bgwhite (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above rationale. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to StudioCanal#Background as a "cleaner" outcome; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Studio Canal, as not much content involved. Atlantic306 (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Sam Walton (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April Boys[edit]

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

Delete: as musical group which fails notability threshold by a wide margin. Unsourced, mostly OR. Quis separabit? 03:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above Sassmouth (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more discussion required to establish a consensus — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera's eighth studio album[edit]

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

This would be more suitable for a draft, that can be later moved into an actual article. See WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. TheKaphox T 12:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See the custom source search below, which is providing many more results compared to the one atop this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the time being. When the album releases with confirmed details and passes WP:NALBUM, we can re-look into this article with a new name. (BreatheHeavy says the name will be called "Breathe", but I don't know if this is trustworthy) —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilink Jacker[edit]

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

Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam, fails WP:NSOFTWARE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not provide any indication of notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Radio Club (W9AIU)[edit]

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

This was the best mention I found in the press, so I think the topic does not pass notability guidelines, in particular WP:ORG. I would have expected mentions in the local press for such a club, and could not even find that. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find sources either. There are some listings which prove that the society exists, but nothing to show why it is important. The significant coverage is not available here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this looks like a directory listing / fan page / listserve for users. No value to the project at this time & not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Louis[edit]

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

I was on the verge of WP:A7-ing it, but I guess "does business in 37 countries" is a claim of notability, so here we go. The obvious problem is WP:BIO. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero Google news hits, and minimal or passing coverage in books and periodicals. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oleryhlolsson (talk) 16:09, 17 November 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Zhongsong[edit]

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

Does not really assert notability, and one newspaper article (cited) isn't really sufficient to establish notability, I think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are sources available in Chinese. Timmyshin (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think the sources establish his notability. --Nlu (talk) 01:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. Delete. Timmyshin (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not for Sale (album)[edit]

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

Not notable nor referenced Rathfelder (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And the artist doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Yintan 21:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant media coverage, hasn't charted anywhere. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:14, 6 November 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. Or rather, no interest... Sandstein 16:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Released Upon the Earth[edit]

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

Only one of the provided sources meets WP:RS, and even that is brief, and the album does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been put under as a stub article. There were more references for this album digitally than the other Vengeance Rising albums. Metalworker14 (Yo) 2:56, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GSS (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:33, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Ferreira[edit]

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

Subject appears to be lacking "substantial" coverage in "multiple" secondary, independent and reliable sources. Thus doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 19:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 19:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 19:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 14:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources merely confirms biographical details but nothing substantial about actual achievements. LibStar (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's in fact no actual claims of significance, named publications be damned, since they're not conveying anything but advertising. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 16 November 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 The Godfather Part III. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ola[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. There are a couple sources mentioning his real world basis, but nothing truly substantial. TTN (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. This was a (major?) factional character in a major film that won many awards. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Godfather Part III. Article does not have enough reliable sources to justify a separate article, as stated by TTN. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 11:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Godfather Part III, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 11 November 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 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Stephens (sculptor)[edit]

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

Notability tag added to article a couple of years ago, no improvement since. The article is more or less unsourced and there aren't any claims (apart from maybe two solo exhibitions) that would confer notability even if they were adequately sourced. I can't find any significant coverage, apart from possibly this article which mentions a sculpture by "Welsh sculptor" Dave Stephens (who may not even be the same person). Time for it to go, I think. It's not much use as it stands. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable run of the mill sculptor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as artists own personal bio doesn't show much that would meet notability. Theredproject (talk) 18:49, 20 November 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 Vancouver Whitecaps FC. Clear consensus not to keep the article. Going for a redirect in case people can salvage some content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Whitecaps FC Residency[edit]

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

Resubmitting this article for deletion discussion. My first suggestion that this league was a youth league was proven wrong, fair enough, it's an academy team/league. But I honestly do not believe that a 4th tier, amateur-level US soccer/football academy league meets WP:GNG standards on its own. Here are my arguments against this:

1) Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams, all sports teams must meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) requirements, so my following points will discuss those aspects.
2) Notability is not inherent. Arguments against this deletion often stated that "the consensus was that academy teams/leagues are notable." Per policy: "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists" Practically all sources given for this academy team are local in nature, not regional nor national.
3) Notability is not inherited. There is not an argument that this academy team is indeed affiliated with its respective notable parent club, and it may have indeed produced notable players, but that does not, by definition, make the academy club itself notable.
4) Fails depth of coverage. Multiple, independent sources have not been cited to establish notability of this academy league. Again, sources are local to the team.
5) Fails local unit notability. Direct quote from this rule: "the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article - unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area."

Now, I can agree with the opinion and would even support a Merge of this content to its respective parent club page, Vancouver Whitecaps FC. But on its own, this page fails. SanAnMan (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 12:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources and no assertion of notability. This could be a notable topic but there's no evidence here that it is. Redirecting to Vancouver Whitecaps may be appropriate --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per nom. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Residency consists of youth teams, and current consensus is that youth teams must be independently notable to have articles. I'm not even sure a mention on Vancouver Whitecaps FC is appropriate. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jkudlick Spiderone 15:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect not independently notable enough per the nominator, but probably worth a paragraph in the Vancouver Whitecaps FC article. Joseph2302 09:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Barr-Kumar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Copied from OTRS 2016101810014724 - Raj Barr-Kumar is not a prominent American architect, or architect of note by any standard accepted measure. The voluminous curriculum vitae of awards, education and registrations are not proof of any meaningful merit, as any self-promoting architect could duplicate it. The entry is authored by someone who most likely is connected via family, pupil or being paid. All of Barr's books are vanity press , and no more than required texts that all professors publish to sell to their students. Barr, had no tenure at American University where he taught for a few years. Barr lists well known buildings as projects deceitfully, never any detail to the extent of project. Listing Embassies, Hotels and various buildings of note regardless his part (if any) and never any sources verifying what extent. One project listed on his company page, "National Cathedral", was at best a collaboration with another architect on bringing restrooms up to ADA code. That in itself is suspect that Barr had any meaningful input, but very disingenuous in promotion regardless. There are few to any actual photos "of great accomplishments" actually built, but rather his portfolio is strewn with conceptual drawings. One project noted "Altos Escondidos" was a purchase of land by his brother the principal, in Panama in about year 2007, and has yet to even show any proof of breaking ground or sales, with investors losing 100% of their capital. The project has been alleged a fraud by investors goo.gl/6eL8Np Past president of AIA, garners no illustrious recognition as this is only an organization architects pay to join (to use as promotion), not unlike the AMA for physicians. The AIA, replaces it President yearly and one only needs to research past Presidents to note that position does not make one noteworthy as an architect at all. Barr's office address is and always has been a mail drop, and shared office space type of arrangement. One only needs to verify that searching his business address and noting the multitude of businesses seeking office presence in Washington DC, using the identical address. There are no employees, engineers or architects at that address, and it is very unlikely Barr has ever had a payroll. The entry is pure fiction as to relevance of any noteworthiness, and is purely a vanity page , SURELY ORCHISTRATED BY BARR HIMSELF. Anyone in support is probably a student seeking a quid pro quo. The author needs to be vetted as badly as Barr. One only has to note the CV's of well accepted prominent American architects, probably all which would be one quarter the length as Barr likes to publish. His standing of fame in Sri Lanka, doubt that as well. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The result of the previous debate on the worthiness of this article's inclusion on Wikipedia was speedy keep. The editor who originally submitted the article for deletion even withdrew the request. The merit of the individual has not changed. With regards to the suggestion that presidency of the AIA does not merit one's inclusion in Wikipedia, I would suggest that you consider the impact that leadership of the organization which governs and directs an industry responsible for so much of a society's cultural identity can have on history and on society itself. The American Institute of Architects Wikipedia page lists the names of past presidents in red. Generally this is indicative of a subject that various editors and members of Wiki projects (such as WikiProject Architecture) would like to see included in Wikipedia. Below is a list I included in the original deletion debate which lists my primary arguments meriting this individual's inclusion in Wikipedia.

1.) Fellow of the American Institute of Architects

2.) Former president of the American Institute of Architects and first person of non-European origin to hold that post in the organization's 140 year history

3.) Possibly the best know American architect of Sri Lankan decent

4.) 30 year history as a collegiate educator with a number of published works

5.) Noteworthiness as architect of record on a large number of projects in the US and internationally (I was still in the process of building the section of completed works when the article was nominated.)

As I have continued to research the individual I have come to learn that many of Barr's contributions to the practice of architecture and to the industry are philosophical and ideological rather than actually buildings. As such I added the "Advocate and volunteer" section as I continued to develop the article. Like most people, I am a volunteer editor and have never been paid for my contributions to Wikipedia. As such, I edit when I have the time. The "Works" section is the last thing I have to revise before I'd consider the article substantially complete (I've made numerous corrections and added various clarifications since the last debate, but the final overhaul is still to come). My plan is to eliminate the chart in favor of a list style format that will include a chronological listing of significant projects, and will detail specific contributions and include project partners when appropriate.

Finally, I'd like to say that there has been no attempt at subterfuge on my part. All information has been researched and referenced appropriately. I don't know anything about Barr's office situation, so I can't comment on that, but I'm also not sure what relevance that has here. While I have contributed to Wikipedia for many years, this is my first comprehensive biographical entry on Wikipedia, and I welcome discussion via the article's talk page with regards to any information which is deemed superfluous or inappropriate for inclusion per Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living persons. Best, Bmhs823 (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The article clearly passes WP:GNG due to sources available. This ad hominem nomination reason attempts to argue for deletion by attacking the article subject, and reads like a joke. Close and move on, folks. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on current content, he is a commercial architect of no notability. No source to support the "prominent" claim in the lede, and of course "prominent" does not mean "notable". There is no indication of any architectural notability in any construction project he has designed or has worked on as part of a team. Nor is there any indication that his term as president of AIA amounted to anything notable. We do not list persons simply on the basis of their position in a notable trade organization, or on their ethnicity compared to the ethnicity of others, and Wikipedia is not a trade directory. Full of rather meaningless corporate jargon like "educator", "advocate" but very little substance - nothing to suggest any notability from being those things, nothing notably innovative. To justify notable, or even prominent, I would have expected to see published works by the subject, and see those works cited in other academic works, and see his designs cited in academic works or in specialist architectural publications of note, and perhaps reported on in more general news outlets. But there is nothing. Dig into the sources cited, and we have an individual just doing the everyday tasks any individual in his/her position would routinely be expected to do to justify their position. ~~There is a rather strange use of first name in the article, it's all "Raj" this, "Raj" that, suggesting perhaps a connection between the article's creator and its subject.~~ (Comment withdrawn, article's creator has explained this style was his decision and that the article when created had used "Barr".) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On his publications, his book "Green Architecture: Strategies for Sustainable Design" is self published (or published by his company), under the publishing name Barr International. I can find no reviews of it. His "Sustainable Design Strategies" and "Fire Water Sound Motion: Re-thinking Mechanical Systems" are both published by "Environmental Design Technology Group", a name which appears to not exist outside of those two works, so it is a reasonable assumption that they too are self-published. I can find no reviews of either of them. And not a single article or paper published since his graduation? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox awards are not notable for the field. For the "Sri Lanka Foundation" awards, this is a minor organization that seeks "to educate the citizens of the world on Sri Lanka and the achievements of its people" - it has no status for awards concerning architecture and has no dedicated awards for architecture. Neither does one generally count honorary memberships as awards. One of the sources is really an advertorial, [22], to claim notability for putting together an admittedly interesting class exercise seems grasping at straws [23] (the "design a temporary shelter for $25" type of project is a common task set for students in most architecture or design schools), most of the remaining sources are not neutral for notability purposes since they are connected to the subject - [24] - would be a valid source for a citation that he was a architecture professor at CUA (not notable in itself), but not for anything more than that. Same for the AIA source. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of the 18 sources now listed I can find only 3 that might be seen as being connected to the subject. Two of those are his firm's website, which I would assume is normal for an architect. I'm also not sure how this, [[25]], could be considered an advertorial. I originally used Barr throughout the entry (instead of Raj) and changed it recently. As I've said before, this is my first attempt at a comprehensive biographical article, and I'd be happy to change it back to Barr if that's the preferred standard. However, that's a matter that should be discussed on the article's talk page, not in a deletion debate.

Other than that most of the new challenges seem like the same old attacks on the article subject despite prior consensus that the article passes WP:GNG. Getting tired of giving my time to Wikipedia to have it wasted by the "delete it" crew. Bmhs823 (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An employer of the subject, or those writing on that employer's behalf, are connected to the subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were no "same old attacks" nor any consensus - the last AfD was withdrawn because you said you had just created it and were still working on the article. "Attacks" is not particularly appropriate language. Neither is "crew". AGF. I think the one keep opinion given before that withdrawal, that "Presidency of AIA should be enough" has no validity. There is no inherent notability in just having the position of the head of a professional trade organization or trades union. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the previous AfD debate:

~~Withdrawn~~. The sourcing is more than sufficient at this time in my opinion, thank you Bmhs823 for your contributions. If there are no objections this AFD may be closed at any time. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bmhs823 (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There would have been no objections because you said you had just created the article and were still working on the article and you had placed an under construction template on it (which was there when it was AfDd). That first AfD was too soon. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The construction template had been removed prior to the conclusion of the prior AfD debate. The withdrawal statement is very clear ,"sourcing is more than sufficient at this time in my opinion." I'm not saying that this one person's opinion is the be-all and end-all. Rather, I simply felt that the best way to challenge your previous statement was to include the exact text from that debate. I should note, this article has more references now than at the conclusion of that debate. Bmhs823 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How was this article even born or considered? Is the author prominent in the architectural field? It takes knowledge of the field to understand when attributes have any real meaning. This entire entry is just a copy of architects long resume, which is then repeated under the AIA past presidents biographies. This architect is extremely concerned with self promotion over actual accomplishment, any of which do not rise to notable. Barr claims himself a world renown architect, in several advertisements is just unilateral self promotion. Over the years teaching as a non tenured professor, in a three year period received four strong negative reviews on a student grade professor site. Not placing any judgement on those reviews, however what took three years to get those four reviews, was then countered in a one week period, of around 25 five star reviews. Sorry that is very suspect. If the author truly does not know Barr, move on you've been duped like many others. If the article stays, it gravely demeans actual "Notable American Architects". Find one other respected source that even acknowledges Barr at all, that has not been paid for. Please consider and vet actual projects completed. To claim one has painstakingly written this biography, when it is nothing more than cut in paste, smh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.6.5 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you are not the one who sent the original deletion nomination at the top? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 02:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it almost certainly is. Perhaps the poster does not realize that by proposing the AfD via OTS, and having their words transferred from there to here, he/she has already expressed a delete opinion. It would be better (if they are the same people) for this to be moved up to be beside the initial AfD reasoning (removing the delete word), or if it is to be kept here, for the delete to be struck out or changed to "Comment". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know the person that opened it. We concur with Tiptoethrutheminefield who took the time for accepted analysis. We only wish others in Wiki who understand due diligence in research, if not architecture itself will endorse deletion. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of "Notable Architects" Why not list under World renown, we can submit several examples where the subject claims that as well. This is the point, you are not going to find any neutral esteemed architect to concur any remarkable notoriety. We still question tie of author to subject, with no answer. This is honestly not an architect anyone "neutral" interested in the field would stumble upon, let alone promote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.6.5 (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know the person who opened it? Here's my issues with you: 1) You telling me your opinion that "the article subject is non-notable/is a fraud/is a this/is a that" doesn't cut the mustard. Neither does saying "this person is not-notable in the architecture industry" because only you are saying it. Do you have any source out there that says that the person is as controversial as you have described? No, I'm not going to help you because as far as I am concerned, the sources that have shown this person meets WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. His membership and other achievements as listed in the article sources means he is notable for inclusion as far as notability guidelines go. 2) Canvassing or deliberately asking others to join in Wikipedia discussions to support your side of the story, whether on or outside of Wikipedia, is heavily frowned upon. Would you like to confirm that you have not approached "the person" directly to ask him to submit this nomination, or otherwise asked for his involvement in this discussion? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can not find any large project noted on company web site, that was not actually designed, engineered by other than fortune 500 firms or equivalent. No third party acknowledgements of any notable completed projects. Author notes "Architect of Record" of many projects. Can those please be verified and listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.99.248 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the official positions listed in the article are quite significant enough so that's enough, as we would say about this as such positions are in fact significant and are not negotiable, unless this was massive advertising, but it's not damned as one currently so it can be kept. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oleryhlolsson (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a fellow of AIA is pretty big. Not terribke. Bearian (talk) 18:28, 21 November 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 delete arguments are more convincing than the keeps here. Policies and guidelines that are tailored to a particular situation carry more weight than those that are more general, and that is exactly what we are seeing here with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERP versus the sourcing arguments based on WP:GNG. It has been argued effectively below that WP:PERP and WP:BLPCRIME indicate that we should not have an article on this individual, as they have not been convicted of a crime, and so WP:DEL9 applies. If the subject is convicted in the future, then this debate can be revisited. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Young (MTPD)[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced WP:BLP1E of a person notable only for being charged with, but not yet convicted of, a crime. Per WP:PERP, we do not create articles about otherwise non-notable people on the basis of criminal allegations not yet proven in a court of law -- the legal and ethical sensitivities involved require us to wait until a conviction is secured. For example, the article can actually become the cause of a mistrial if we don't treat it with a level of hypervigilance much higher than "an encyclopedia that anybody can edit" can actually guarantee -- people can and do regularly smear such articles with wild WP:BLP violations and presumptions of guilty until proven innocent and other violations of Wikipedia's neutrality and personal privacy rules. No prejudice against recreation if and when he's actually found guilty of something by a court of law, but until that happens an article about him is not appropriate today. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is largely a coat rack to attack Young's employers for having employed him. It suffers from lots of NPOV issues, and fixing them would leave us with bascially no article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of article is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because, as CNN notes, this is " the first case of a US police officer charged with aiding ISIS" [26], and because the news coverage has been national in scope, extensive, and in-depth.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Police officer for D.C. subway system accused of trying to help ISIS" [27] Washington Post
"‘I make friends easily’: How Nicholas Young allegedly supported the Islamic State" [28]Washington Post
"Ex-Metro police officer Nicholas Young challenges solitary confinement" [29]Washington Post
Ongoing Washington Post coverage here:[30]
Washington Transit Officer Is Charged With Helping ISIS [31] New York Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The extent of the coverage doesn't matter. If a person is notable only for a criminal allegation for which they have not yet been found guilty, then the WP:BLP issues unconditionally override any volume of coverage. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to that policy? Your assertion is, of course, true for most/many crimes, but with guys like Ahmad Khan Rahimi, we redirect to the crime, and with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, we had the article long before there was a conviction. Whether we keep/create an article before we have a conviction appears to depend on the nature/significance of the crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was created within days of the Boston maration bombings, with the comment "create article, BLP1E no longer applies,". And what WP:BLPCRIME actually says is, " For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." must consider is not "do not", precisely because some crimes are so notable that the previously unknown dude who authorities identify as the perp is no longer protected from having a page by WP:BLP. Ahmad Khan Rahimi (the dude who planted the recent bombs in Manhattan and New Jersey) is a recent example.

WP:PERP reads: "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." and "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:... 2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event."

The question at issue' here becomes: is the fact that Nicholas Young is accused of being the first American police officer to work on behalf of ISIS sufficiently notable and "unusual" to make him notable. I think it is, but I hope that other editors will weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Young is accused of being... This is precisely the problem. It is a BLP violation to keep an article on someone (particularly a low profile individual) who has not been formally convicted. This reduces the article to reporting a speculation and we don't do that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think BLP1E applies here. We're talking about someone who has been accused of a crime, who otherwise would not be notable, and who will be quickly forgotten even if convicted. I don't understand why the fact that he happens to be an American police officer changes the policies at WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP. This information should be a sentence or two in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or one of its breakaway articles, and maybe in Metro Transit Police Department. agtx 17:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We let the RS coverage determine notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand this comment. Sources don't determine notability. We determine notability, based on the coverage and Wikipedia guidelines. Here, there are guidelines that tell us that when a low-profile individual is only notable for a single event that's not particularly significant, we don't have an article. The subject here is only notable for a single event—his arrest. This guy didn't shoot Reagan (or anybody, for that matter). He bought ISIS a gift card. He was low-profile. When his trial finishes, news coverage on him will end, probably permanently. There's no reason for a separate article here. agtx 15:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per " the first case of a US police officer charged with aiding ISIS". special case. BLP1E does not apply here.BabbaQ (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's a transit cop, not a real police officer on a public police force. Which makes "first member of his occupation to be charged with aiding ISIS" about as interesting or encyclopedic as the first barber, the first taxi driver, the first garbageman, the first telephone line repairman or the first stockroom clerk at Walgreens to be charged with aiding ISIS — it is not a compelling reason for a BLP1E exemption. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, The D.C. Metro Police is a public agency. He was a "real police officer on a public police force." It operates in D.C., Virginia, and Maryland because the Metro tracks run across the metro region. These are "real" officers of the law, they carry guns, arrest people, put their lives at risk, and work for us just as city police do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say transit cops weren't public employees — I said that they're not the main law enforcement agency responsible for law enforcement out there in the general public; their responsibility is limited to the transit system itself. And anyway, mailmen, firemen, garbagemen and dog-license clerks are also public employees — being the first public employee to be charged with aiding ISIS does not in and of itself constitute a reason why WP:PERP should or would not still apply, because it doesn't make him special in and of itself and didn't garner disproportionate coverage compared to any other person in any other job who was charged with the same crime. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIM, "the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if ... the execution ... has otherwise been considered noteworthy", which I believe this case satisfies. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 13:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's unusual or noteworthy about the "execution" of any of this? Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Er, an American police offer providing material aid to ISIS was judged "noteworthy" by the press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every person charged with providing material aid to ISIS would always be judged "noteworthy" by the press to exactly the same degree. The coverage is not disproportionate to the amount of coverage that every person charged with that crime would always get regardless of whether they worked as a transit cop, a mailman, a telephone line repairman or a baker — neither the amount of coverage nor the fact of being the first transit cop to face the charge makes him some kind of special case who's earned a special personal exemption from WP:PERP. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. That's not true. Here [32], "Who wanted to help the Islamic State? A gamer, a cop, a cabdriver, prosecutors say," is a Washington Post story about D.C. area men charged with assisting ISIS, the precise situation you propose. Google the names, I did. Just to test your assertion. They have nothing like the coverage Nicholas Young got. (He is discussed in this article as an unusual case.) There has already been a good deal of coverage of the conditions of his imprisonment, and there will almost certainly be more as the case moves forward.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's literally nothing convincing apart from those events, and then nothing actually establishing sufficient and convincing information for his own article, hence there's nothing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 01:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your rationale for deletion is basically Idontlikeit. BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an egregious BLP violation and it should deleted per WP:DEL9. Stuff like Nicholas Young, 36, of Fairfax, is alleged to have tried to assist ISIS while working for the Metro Transit Police Department in Washington, D.C. should never be added to an encyclopaedia. No charges have been proved in a court and this article essentially risks harming the reputation of someone. The concern about a BLP violation overrides any other concerns here like BLP1E and such. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question that you fail to engage, the question at issue in the AFD, is how notable is the crime for which this individual is imprisoned while awaiting trial? If it is sufficiently notable, teh BLP concern is waved. Let's keep this discussion on topic. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, the topic is not the "crime", the topic is the police officer. That is a very significant difference. If the "crime" was notable, it would/should have its own article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about the crime, it is about a person. BLP is a core policy and there are no exceptions to it. WP:DEL9 is a perfectly valid reason for deletion here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in addition to sources brought above, coverage in national media includes (CNN: "DC transit police officer charged with aiding ISIS" [33]), (Associated Press: "FBI: Transit officer 1st lawman charged under US terror law ," [34]), (Wall Street Journal, "Washington, D.C., Transit Officer Charged With Trying to Help Islamic State; Arrest marks first time law-enforcement officer in U.S. charged with supporting terrorism," [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/washington-d-c-transit-officer-charged-with-trying-to-help-islamic-state-1470237816]); (New York Times, "Washington Transit Officer Is Charged With Helping ISIS," [35]). I and other editors weighing in above judge that the coverage is sufficient to outweigh the privacy concern, as it regularly does in terrorism-related cases.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a modest WP:HEYMANN with details taken from RS newspapers detailing the evidence presented by the FBI to the court.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per BLP violation. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS & has not been convicted yet. No long term societal impact to justify an entry in the encyclopedia just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 24 November 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 appears to be that this article should be deleted. WP:ROADOUTCOMES is the only rationale cited for keeping the article, but that specifically states that "Major, unnumbered streets... have varied outcomes." rather than the apparent inference that they are invariably kept at AfD. Number 5 7 14:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

(quoting a message from Rao Ravindra in 2012, who may not know the correct procedures: North Avenue, the north approach road to Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi has not been renamed. It continues to be known as North Avenue (in symmetry with South Avenue, the south approach road to Rashtrapati Bhavan). All links provided in the article are dead. The article should be deleted." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion. This is a procedural nomination. The visible comment that the article should be deleted has been in place since 2012; no one has removed it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I had forgotten that I had made the nomination last time. It should be noted, but, as none of the sources are in English, I don't know whether they support the material as written. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "It should be noted, but, as none of the sources are in English, I don't know whether they support the material as written.", huh? [no.3] of the article from The Tribune News Service (India) is in English, and states under "NDMC to set up shelter for homeless kids Tribune News Service New Delhi, November 22 Setting up of Ashrary Grih (a shelter for homeless children and women), naming of unnamed roads, ... are some of the major decisions taken at the monthly meeting of the New Delhi Municipal Council held today. ... The council also gave the approval for naming the road at North Avenue starting from Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital to Rastrapati Bhawan after Late Pandit Shri Prakash Vir Shastri." Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that is no indication of notability, only (partially) of existence. I've pinged the editor who entered the visible paragraph saying the article is wrong to comment here, although having a note at the head of the article saying that it's wrong for over 4 years suggests a certain lack of interest. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it. I live in New Delhi and have travelled on this road numerous times over the past five decades. Many roads in India have been renamed over the past few decades to honour politicians or religious persons but almost no one refers to those roads by their new names. Almost everyone continues to refer to the roads by their old names except for roads that were originally named after British colonists (such as Robert Clive or Lord Cornwallis, whom the British had sent to rule India after he was defeated and imprisoned in American Colonies). The road which is the subject of this discussion is still called North Avenue by almost everyone. Ask any taxi driver in Delhi to take you to Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue and he would give you a blank look. Ask any taxi driver in Delhi to take you to North Avenue and he will immediately know where you want to go.

The Rashtrapati Bhavan (President's Palace) has one road going south from it and this road is called South Avenue and one road going north from it and this road is called North Avenue. Both N Ave and S Ave form one straight line. It makes no sense to rename the road and still more nonsense to write an article about this new name on Wikipedia. Check any online map on your computer or smart phone and you will find these two avenues but not Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue.

Moreover, the officials in the central government and the local municipal body continue to use the term "North Avenue". Both these avenues have apartments built for and allocated to members of parliament. The parliament secretariat and the estate department (which allots and maintains these apartments) always calls this road North Avenue. Quite possibly, the local body has reverted to the original name because recently I have seen the road sign on this road reading as "North Avennue".

Delete this article. It is not required.

Disclaimer: This is not to belittle Mr. Prakash Vir Shastri or his achievements. He was a good, honest and honourable member of parliament (which cannot be said of a majority of contemporary politicians in India). A Wikipedia article on him exists. But there is no need for an article on this road.

Rao Ravindra (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC) Ravindra Rao 17 October 2016[reply]

so this article could possibly be renamed, having a look at WP:ROADOUTCOMES, the question seems to be, is this a major road, from comment above it appears so? Coolabahapple (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the road was never named "Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue"

North Avenue is not a major road. New Delhi is somewhat like Washington DC. The local municipal body (New Delhi Municipal Council or NDMC) has very little authority and most of its decisions have to be approved by the Administrator or the Lt. Governor both of whom report to the Central Government. Any resolution on renaming any road can be passed or adopted by NDMC but can be implemented only after it has been approved or ratified. Perhaps the resolution to which the article refers was passed by NDMC but never approved by its Administrator. I have never seen any road sign on North Avenue referring to the road as Prakash Vir Shastri Road. Even the government estate office and all government offices refer to the road as North Avenue.

Nevertheles, if this article is to be retained, it can be renamed North Avenue, New Delhi. But really there is no need for this article. There is no corresponding article on South Avenue, New Delhi. Anyway, this is not a major road. A major road emanating from Rashtrapati Bhavan is "Rajpath". And therefore there is a Wikipedia article Rajpath.Rao Ravindra (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ROADOUTCOMES. A major road in Delhi, capital of India. It is this road where President palace's main gate (#35) opens to, including many others notable establishments (source). The road was renamed in 2002, but has been there for several hundred years. When you Google it, try alternative name, 'North Avenue, Delhi'. Anup [Talk] 21:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ It is a minor road. Anup Mehra says "the road ... has been there for several hundred years." He has a very fertile imagination. New Delhi was created only in late 1920s and early 1930s. The whole area was agricultural land before that. There is nothing worthwhile in this article.Rao Ravindra (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck double !vote. @Rao Ravindra: You've already !voted delete in the discussion. You can add as many comments you want but not !vote twice.

Answer to your comment: Construction of the Viceroy's house was started in 1912 and completed in 1929; I'm highly skeptical that they would build such an important establishment in the wild. The whole region has a very rich history, and the state has served as the capital city of many empires before 1912. The state of Delhi was created in 736 A.D..

At the very least, one should note that, "New Delhi" (a region within Delhi) was recognised as a city in 1911, and the construction of the home of the ruler of India started in 1912 which opens to this road; so it could very well be argued to be the first road of the New Delhi region (if the region was uninhabited before). Anup [Talk] 20:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anup Mehra's (lack of) knowledge of history is appalling. The whole region, where New Delhi was built, was rural dotted with a number of villages and their agricultural fields. Rashtrapati Bhavan stands at what was Raisina village. It was only one of the several dozen villages which were entirely uprooted (and their residents sent elsewhere in rural Delhi) to make way for starting the construction of New Delhi a few years after the end of First World War. The British did build the new city in the "wild" (as he calls this region which was populated with several dozen villages) and his skepticism means nothing. North Avenue is one of several hundred minor roads in Delhi and an article about it is not worthwhile.Rao Ravindra (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice you concentrate on comment rather than commentator. Click blue links from my previous comment; believe me you would know many new things from there. Start from Rashtrapati Bhawan - there you will know, it was Viceroy's home built in 1912. Then, open New Delhi - King George V - established the city in 1911. Are you telling me that they built this building where there was no road-connectivity to outer world? Or Viceroy's home opened to an agricultural land? I'm sorry, but that's plain ridiculous. Anyway, what exactly is your source of information? WP:CITE them here? Be aware that original research is prohibited. Anup [Talk] 04:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove your ignorance yourself. Go on, make some effort! It will do you some good. Evidently you did not bother to read Wikipedia articles on Rashtrapati Bhavan or Raisina Hill to which I had provided links. There is a lot of published material stating the sequence of construction of New Delhi in 1920s with maps and sketches and write-up and it is also available in digital form. It may be nice if Anup Mehra reads those instead of saying "I believe", "I am skeptical", "Are you telling me", "That's plain ridiculous", et al. Maps of this rural area before 1911 are available online showing the villages and their agricultural land with dirt tracks connecting the villages and a railway line (Delhi-Mathura) passing through what is now India Gate. Contrary to what he asserts, New Delhi was not established in 1911; it was only talked in December 1911 at Delhi Durbar to move the capital from Calcutta to Delhi. Rashtrapati Bhavan was completed after the first world war. Several dozen villages were removed and new roads built by the British during and after the war. North Avenue is one of these new roads built by the British when they built New Delhi. It did not exist earlier. (Rastrapati Bhavan itself stands on what was Raisina village and its agricultural land. Malcha Marg in Chanakyapuri is named after another of these removed villages.)

North Avenue is one of several hundred minor roads in Delhi and an article about it entitled "Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue" is not worthwhile.Rao Ravindra (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for Evidence. All what you have posted here; seem nothing but Original research what is not allowed on Wikipedia. You are arguing that British started building Viceroy's house where there are no road connectivity. And yes, it is plain ridiculous. Anup [Talk] 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 07:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not adequately demonstrate inherent notability: they mention the road, but are not devoted to it. The road cannot likewise WP:INHERIT notability from the buildings that line it. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that notability is not inherited. I'm just arguing that it is major road and should be kept per long-established consensus and precedent, WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Anup [Talk] 11:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Anup, this official source has convinced me that North Avenue did not exist in 1912, etc, etc. While original research is prohibited from incorporation in articles, ~~but~~ for things such as AFDs, a minimal quantity of checking can be useful.^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for ping and reference. I read the source; and found an image. This is the road I'm arguing to be a major road (how the road looks like now). 87 years is still a long-time, and it is not likely that this road is going to be abandoned anytime soon. The road beside which resides a country president and members of parliament, must be a major and notable road (for me, it is common sense. However I do not mean to say that people who disagrees with me lacks common sense.). I'm not asking you to !vote keep. Every editor should exercise their best judgement; this one is mine. Anup [Talk] 11:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After much bluster (but no substance) and skepticism and calling me ridiculous, Anup Mehra finally made some effort (as I had asked him to do) to read (one of several) published sources and had to concede that this minor road did not exist before Rashtrapati Bhavan was built on agricultural land. Now, when he cannot argue logically, he begs to use "common sense" to say that the road "must be" s major road!! Must be? How? I have lived in New Delhi for six decades, am thoroughly familiar with Delhi's history and used this road a few times. This road is one of several hundred minor roads in New Delhi and an article on it is of no value. More so because no one calls it Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue. The title of the article is a misnomer. Delete it.Rao Ravindra (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call "you" (read again and again, and may be ask someone who could read better) but your assumption that there was no road connectivity to the house of ruler of India, ridiculous. I stand by that. I didn't ask for people to !vote based on common sense but use their best judgement. You clearly don't get the sentence "original research is not allowed on Wikipedia" (that you just know that it is a minor road, no one calls it so, etc.). And I don't see any sense in continuing this conversation; wait for other editors to jump in and weigh their view-points. Anup [Talk] 17:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you that you realized your limitation and stopped giving sermons to others who are better informed and well-read. Was it not your original "research" when you wrote that North Avenue "has been there for several hundred years"? (From where did you get that fanciful idea except creating it in your head?) Or that "New Delhi was recognised as a city in 1911" when only the nebulous idea of creating a new city was floated at Delhi Durbar in late December 2011 and the new city slowly took shape in 1920s and 1930s? For your information, construction of Connaught Place, the main market in the new city, New Delhi, finished only in 1933, two years after the New Delhi was formally inaugurated in 1931. When you wrote "...it must be a major and notable road..." what was the source? You create these imaginary thoughts (major and notable road) in your mind without any source and then advise others that "original research is not allowed on Wikipedia". Indeed! Even after user Hydronium Hydroxide removed your ignorance and informed you that North Avenue did not exist in 1912, etc., etc., you are obstinate enough to again write "your assumption that there was no road connectivity to the house of ruler of India (is) ridiculous". What is ridiculous is that there are ignorant users like you who do not know history, are not well-read and refuse to learn.Rao Ravindra (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Redirect if properly merged): On available evidence it needs a rename at minimum. The Rashtrapati Bhavan site uses "North Avenue" and indicates that Gate 38 (not 35) provides pedestrian access only. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GEOROAD or WP:GNG based on secondary coverage. It's one of a few precincts for MP residences), there's been few mentions in stories, there's the Cathedral Church of the Redemption and the Aam Aadmi Party headquarters and the hospital. All rather thin, but incorporation in Lutyens' Delhi appears reasonable in the absence of evidence of more than passing coverage. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 10:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem here is not notability, but verifiability. I tried to search a lot but all mentions of "Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue" seems to be Wikipedia mirrors/copied information. The tribune source is the only one which mentions that a decision to change the name was taken, it doesn't say it was implemented. All other sources continue to use North Avenue (the official presidential websites as well as media sources) and the relation between this road and North Avenue remains ultimately unclear. Perhaps it was proposed as a name only once? Anyway due to verifiability concerns, I do not think this needs to be kept (or even merged/redirected). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I just noticed something. This page was originally titled "North Avenue" and then it was moved to the current title. Anyway, since there is no evidence that Prakash Vir Shastri Avenue formally exists, I would say this article can be deleted (there is also hardly anything to salvage from here and I don't like that redirect hanging around). However, I will leave a note on the talk page of Lutyens' Delhi about North and South Avenue so that other editors can add info and cite reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V as this road may not exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mockplus[edit]

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

This article fails to comply with multiple Wikipedia guidelines. It lacks the notability necessary for a Wikipedia article (WP:GNG, specifically WP:COMPANY). It also contains content that is written like an advertisement (WP:SOAP), and it is written from a biased point of view (WP:NPOV) by someone who is likely connected to the subject (WP:AUTO). The article was deleted under PROD and recreated with the PROD's text intact. Cabayi (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be deleted because there is no advertising content from this article, and it should has the chance to get improved, thanks! Doris Deu (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a small start-up by one guy with a mobile app with the same name. Reception of this tool/company is low and only on non-RS blogs and similar media. It seems to be neat and the reviews are positive, but it is far to early to warrant an article for that, due the absence of coverage in actual RS. It is from a Chinese developer. There are some mentions of the product in the Chinese web (like here), but I cant find enough which would allow it to pass the threshold at WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT/WP:NCORP. Due the absence of RS the article should therefore be deleted. Note that the article has been created by two single user-accounts. Dead Mary (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No claim to notability fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Theroadislong (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nomination, except for WP:SOAP, as this has largely been edited out since the original nomination. - Arjayay (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per discussion, fails wiki links listed by the nominator. --Music Boy50 (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was the one that proposed this article for deletion last time and I was surprised to see it recreated. And while the WP:SOAP problem has been addressed (to a certain extent), the rest of the problems with this article remain, including WP:AUTO, WP:NPOV (to an extent), and the biggest one of them all, WP:GNG/WP:COMPANY. And it is the lattermost issue with this article that can never be addressed. See Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. tl;dr: This article should be deleted and it should not re-emerge until the subject in question has enough notability behind it. Wikipedia is a means to learn more about subjects that already are notable, not a means to make a subject notable (see Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion). Blurp92 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 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 Legal affairs of Donald Trump.

It's clear that this topic has generated quite a bit of media coverage, to the point where it isn't going to be deleted on notability grounds. The central issue in this discussion is WP:NOTNEWS: whether the coverage given to the subject is enough for a standalone article or doesn't indicate long term significance. This is ultimately a matter of editorial judgement and neither position on this issue is unreasonable. However far more people have come down on the side of not having a standalone article on the subject and that is the tone of the discussion below. Several people on both sides have left arguments based on accusations that the other side's actions are politically motivated, these are frankly not helpful and I have tried to ignore them.

Having established that we aren't going to have a standalone article on the subject, the other question is whether it should be included in Legal affairs of Donald Trump or not. There is substantial support/consent for a merge in the discussion below, mainly from people who don't want a standalone article, but also a few people who object to a merge. As whether to include this content in the target article and what kind of information to merge is all up to editorial discretion and can be decided outside AfD anyway, I am going to close as Redirect and let the issue of any potential merge be thrashed out on the relevant talk pages. --Hut 8.5 19:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump email controversy[edit]

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

Pretty blatant hit-piece that has "coincidentally" sprung up in the week before the election. Massive WP:BLP concerns. Article's creator has admitted support for Clinton and complained about "pro-Trump bias". Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. ¡Boz zio! 09:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC) ***Correction***: you are deliberately twisting my words! --S I 17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Boomerang, Bozzio - Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. If something is verifiable and covered by multiple reliable sources, we don't censor it just because you don't like it. The article is perfectly valid for inclusion in WP, per numerous policies, though of course it can benefit from expansion. Censorship of Trump articles seems to be an ongoing thing with his supporters (just now restored a working reference someone had deleted from the article). Apparently we can't even include his upcoming court hearing for rape of a minor because someone wants to discuss it first, even though the hearing and allegations have widespread coverage! (Question for the proposer on the subject of bias - is s/he trying to keep out the latest FBI investigation of Clinton emails from that article, even though those allegations '"coincidentally" sprung up in the week before the election' too?) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where have I disrupted Wikipedia, where have I called for censorship of this material, and where have I said I don't like it? Please don't strawman. I haven't made an argument anywhere that this should be wiped from Wikipedia completely, only that this particular article should be deleted. You've completely ignored that the article's creator is a self-proclaimed Clinton supporter, do you think Trump supporters should be able to make an article about the myriad Clinton "controversies" that receive avalanches of coverage in right-wing sources? Try assuming some good faith. ¡Boz zio! 09:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, is this even a valid AfD? "Massive BLP concerns"... aren't listed. "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)" don't apply either - the subject could hardly be more notable right now, the content is verifiable and reliably sourced, and nothing in WP:NOT seems to apply. So really this comes down to "I don't like it". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states, in Wikipedia's voice, that Trump committed obstruction of justice, tampering with evidence, and is a vexatious litigant. Two of those are felonies, and all are probably defamatory, which is why the BLP policy was implemented. Imagine this was any other celebrity, do you think that would be acceptable? ¡Boz zio! 09:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If those allegations are not based on RS (or are grossly misrepresented/put out of proportion) and the article only serves as attack page to defame the subject the article could (and should) be speedy deleted. There are criteria for cases like that, namely WP:G10 and perhaps WP:G10. Just as a general note, I haven't checked the subject though. Dead Mary (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. No controversy is stated, and this small topic doesn't warrant an article of its own. It can fit in a paragraph or two of a more comprehensive article. $ɱ$ (talk) · vbm · coi) 10:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Legal affairs of Donald Trump per my comments on the talk page. The article doesn't point out what the controversy is, or why it needs to be a standalone article. All of the material covered on this page can easily be covered elsewhere. This article title appears to try to mirror the one about Clinton. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. This strikes me as an unnecessary and non-neutral content fork. The Legal affairs article isn't too long and can easily accommodate this content, which appears designed as a pointy response to Hillary Clinton email controversy and in contrast doesn't have much of a life of its own. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-neutral. Most of the "story" is about not having a document retention policy. That in itself is not a controversy. The part about deleting email related to lawsuits was alleged but the "controversy" went nowhere because the case was settled. MB 16:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MB. This is a stitched-together idea for an article. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per Dr Fleischman. Maybe a brief summary could be merged with Legal affairs of Donald Trump. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Nearly all the sources that I had added have meanwhile been removed, also content from the article. Certainly the article was still a stub, but I would have and will improve when I have time and hoped and hope that other contributors would help instead of just destroying sources and content to force for deletion. Article quality, especially when intentionally disrupted, is not a reason to delete. (More sources here) --S I 17:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Schmarrnintelligenz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Parsley Man (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If sources were improperly deleted then raise the issue on the talk page. On first glance it looks to me like some of the deletions were proper and some were not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nothingburger. A brief mention is warranted in Legal affairs of Donald Trump but please do not redirect because the title of this page is intentionally misleading, as noted by several commenters. — JFG ^talk 19:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable; has received significant coverage in reliable sources, following a cover story in Newsweek, and not just an isolated incident but a decade-long practice. Trump himself has made email transparency the seemingly most important issue of the election. --Tataral (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge a brief summary to Legal affairs of Donald Trump without leaving a redirect. This is not something that has gained any kind of notability; if anything it seems to have emerged only as a counterpoint to Hillary Clinton email controversy. Wikipedia should not be a part of that kind of gamesmanship. If an admin feels this has reached SNOW territory I would encourage that kind of close - rather than relying on PROCESS to make this thing hang around until after the election. --MelanieN (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, redirect, and merge to Legal affairs of Donald Trump - It's not a controversy (at least not yet) and there is simply not enough coverage or substance to justify an independent article. I mistakenly thought the MSM would be all over this, because the system is rigged, and it's a rigged system. It's totally rigged. Believe me. - Mr X 23:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The controversy is unlikely to grow large enough to warrant its own article, and as others have noticed, the current title seems to be a deliberate mirroring of the Hillary Clinton email controversy.

However, I'd like to briefly take issue with the OP's statement about SI. The linked comment from SI says they are "really not in favour of Mrs. Clinton," but just feel that "Mr. Trump will to an exponential degree be so much worse." So it is incorrect for Bozzio to say that the article creator has "admitted support for Clinton." Even if that is true, an editor's political preferences are not a valid reason for arguing that an article should be deleted. In fact, editors naturally gravitate to articles the opposite of their personal beliefs.^[1] While I'm arguing for a merge, I nonetheless want this AfD to be as fair as possible in case someone else has much stronger reasons for keeping the article. JasperTECH (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Guo, Jeff. "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. In their data, they noticed that people often targeted pages of the opposite political persuasion. Left-leaning contributors were more likely to make changes on right-leaning Wikipedia pages, and vice versa.

Very Strong Delete Wikipedia is NOT news. It does not exist as a digest to news stories. When an article essentially says "Newsweek made allegations of x" than we have a case of POV and article forking without adequate sources. There are hardly the required "multiple" sources to establish the notability of a subject, and no where near the sources that would be needed to justify forking this content out of a larger article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - sniffs like a Red herring mudball thrown out in the last week of election. Doesn't seem to have gotten enough WP:WEIGHT of coverage to be worth an article, and the piece it's from or status as a 2016 'controversy' seems to lack WP:N. Seems to be just a rant about 1973 bundled with one about a casino 2005 lawsuit mentioned. That was re-mentioned in the summer and went nowhere, now this repackaged and rerun under a new label. Really, it's just a tiny ranting, not covered in major outlets or important enough for an article -- certainly nothing on scale of debate mentioned or getting headlines. The guy wrote a little rant piece because there's a market for such and made a little sale, ignore it and move on. Markbassett (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is one article, written by Kurt Eichenwald for Newsweek Europe on October 31, 2016, about various Trump business activities between 1973 and 2001, some of which resulted in settled legal cases. The other sources in 'Donald Trump email controversy' were based on Eichenwald's Newsweek article, e.g. International Business Times UK (which stated in its coverage that it is owned by the same media company that owns Newsweek), or The Huffington Post. HuffPo appends the following language to every article about Donald Trump: "Editor’s note: Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther", which suggests to me that it is not NPOV regarding Donald Trump. I agree with MB's recommendation above, that there isn't enough substance here to warrant a separate Wikipedia article. I would suggest deletion, after merging a sentence into the Legal Affairs of Donald Trump, with one citation to Eichenwald's coverage in Newsweek Europe as a reference.--FeralOink (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I just realized that there was also a June 2016 report via USA Today, about the lack of email document retention policies at Trump businesses between 1996 and 2001, including this observation: "Trump was not accused of doing anything illegal at the time and he clearly was not a public official". This Wikipedia entry is misleading as it gives undue emphasis to subject matter that is not comparable in scale or notability to Hillary Clinton's email disclosures, which is further reinforced by the parallel article names ('Donald Trump email controversy' and Hillary Clinton email controversy).--FeralOink (talk) 10:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep This afd is motivated by partisan intent, where conservative partisans want to censor the flaws of a candidate they like, and wikipedia should not take sides in partisanship like this. 00ff00 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is your rationale for voting, then the closer is likely to ignore it. Please assume good faith and use policy based arguments as to why you believe this article should be kept, and the material not included in any of the other articles devoted to Trump's controversies. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is a frivolous afd not vandalism? Vandalism, by definition, is not good faith. This article has a very important place in wikipedia, and it should stay. 00ff00 (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't tag the page for deletion for partisan reasons, but because it's extremely small. The creator of the page has also admitted to being a Clinton supporter. Don't use Wikipedia to make a point. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Very Strong Delete I am the one who first proposed this article for deletion, not due to beliefs but because it is too small to have its own page. The name, in my opinion, is also very misleading (I initially thought it was an issue similar to Mrs. Clinton's). (TheJoebro64 (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as per MelanieN. There's not enough independent notability on this issue to justify an article all on its own. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AFAIK there's very little coverage of this, unlike the Clinton email controversy. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do it asap. Is a faked "controversy", obviously cobbled together for no other reason than to be a response article to Hillary Clinton email controversy - but the subject bears no real comparison and its content has not enough notability for a stand alone article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge This article can properly be covered under Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Also, if this controversy dates as far back as 1973, when emails weren't involved, then why is the word "email" used in the title? I also think that before consensus is made on this decision, the page shouldn't be included in Template:Trump. WClarke (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete First of all, this could easily be confused with the Clinton email controversy, a significant issue right now. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are presidential candidates; perhaps if somebody sees the article in question, they would confuse it with the one on Clinton's email controversy, or just assume that Trump had done the same thing, or nearly the same thing, as Clinton. In fact, they are completely different issues. In assuming good faith, I will not assume that this article was published with the sole purpose of responding to the Clinton email scandal, which has recently been revived by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, however, I do believe that it may be serving such a purpose, whether intentionally or not. If the legality of the actions described in the article was disputed, I would propose that the article in question be merged with the Legal affairs of Donald Trump article. However, an article by USA Today states that this is not the case. Because the actions described in this article were not illegal, I do not see its relevance. Further, many news articles cited in the article simply published their articles as a response to the Clinton email scandal, whether or not the article itself was intended in this way. This seems to me, therefore, as against Wikipedia's no news guideline. The article is about an issue which seems to have little significance, other than to cancel out the Clinton email scandal and convince people not to base their vote on the email scandal. That, to me, seems to conflict with what Wikipedia is, and this article will likely become irrelevant after Election Day in the United States of America. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, with non-biased, purely factual information on a wide variety of subjects; this article does not comply with that, being relevant only to ensure that Hillary Clinton does not lose support over the ongoing email scandal.Wikier1010 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your "argument" is just one long, drawn out way of saying WP:IJUSTDON'TLIKEIT. Not a valid reason for deletion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that this article is news, not encyclopedic content. Further, now that the election in the United States has ended, I think this issue will become irrelevant. Wikier1010 (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete This article is motivated by partisan intent, where liberal partisans want to illustrate the flaws of a candidate they dislike, and wikipedia should not take sides in partisanship like this. --Malerooster (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In particular "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument. Neither is crying "POV!" (especially when it doesn't exist). We don't delete articles for alleged POV, only lack of notability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I tagged the article for deletion, I believe the creator of the article had good faith intentions. Please assume good faith. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Good faith intentions are hard to accept when the article's creator seems to have consciously chose this title for the article so that it could purport to be similar in subject and stature to Hillary Clinton email controversy - here is Schmarrnintelligenz adding a "see also" [[36]] to the Clinton emails article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random accusation promoted week before election by Kurt Eichenwald who has promoted falsities about Trump before. Immediate delete. KMilos (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In particular "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument. Neither is crying "POV!" (especially when it doesn't exist). We don't delete articles for alleged POV, only lack of notability. Also, please keep in mind that BLP applies to discussion pages and your opinions on Kurt Eichenwald, a Pulitzer finalist and a widely respected journalist, are neither here nor there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no legitimate and widespread coverage of any such "scandal," imagined or otherwise. The subject matter is unnotable and of zero significance. Nagylelkű (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easily disproven by the fact that there are indeed a lot of sources on this issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS.LM2000 (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I've never even heard of this controversy before until now. Parsley Man (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that in the guidelines, that only articles are notable that you have heard of before? --S I 07:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man, if I can use "I never of this" in deletion discussion, there's like hundreds I'd like to see deleted. Let me at'em, just point me to'em (I can't find'em myself since I've never heard of them yet)Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I literally have never heard of this in the news, and believe me, I watch a lot of news. Including mainstream media channels people would claim are "anti-Trump". I don't read online news that much, though, so I might've missed it there, but still, I think I should've heard about it at least once on television by now. Parsley Man (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how funny, that you are using the exact same rationale as User:LM2000 above. Word for word.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No stand-alone notability here that potentially can't fit into other related articles. User2534 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: most of the delete votes are not referring to the current status of the article, which has been significantly improved and sourced. Especially, some of those delete comments seem to (willingly?) deny the amount and quality of sources that have been posted here, on the article talk page and added to the article. --S I 03:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The article is still significantly short compared to its counterpart, the Hillary Clinton email controversy. If there are more sources out there that do not repeat the information already provided in this article and instead contribute something new, then you'd be better post them ASAP if you want to sway the AfD vote in your favor. Parsley Man (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you say that the article has to have a similar length like the (rather lengthy) Clinton article? Where is the guideline for such a criterion? --S I 07:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just making a point on how small it still is. Like, I'm expecting more sections and more information. Given this has already been a story for five months and it's revolving around one of the most controversial presidential candidates in recent memory, I'd expect more coverage to come out of this, and therefore more content to work on. Instead, all we have is a "Development" section. Parsley Man (talk) 08:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: as there has been the question if the title was only copying the Clinton email controversy, no, but as stated before I certainly support to find a better one and this has been fixed now. --S I 05:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep: With wp:RS sources during prior 6 months, for issues spanning 20 years, this is not just wp:NEWS but a long-term topic, compared to "Hillary Clinton email clearance" which was resolved in July 2016 to not file charges by FBI nor U.S. Justice Department because her deletions were proven to be routine cleanup, with no case of destruction of evidence or coverup, but Trump's email deletions have not been proven as innocent. So, Keep then rename Clinton page from "controversy" to "clearance" because controversy was over when both FBI and DoJ separately cleared Clinton of proposed charges. Oppose merger into "Legal affairs of Donald Trump" as wp:COATRACK which would further overstuff that page by wp:TLDR as wp:UNDUE weight to explain email controversy fully where judge was shocked how Trump emails were deleted. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am very willing to reconsider my delete vote if more verifiable, well-sourced content can be posted on the article, content that will convince me on the subject's noteworthiness. Parsley Man (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Legal affairs of Donald Trump. The criterion for including something in Wikipedia is its coverage in WP:RS. The entry lists 21 WP:RS, which is enough to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Most of the calls for deletion do not state a valid Wikipedia policy or guideline. Many simply disagree with the judgment of the multiple WP:RS. Many seem to be motivated by a partisan support for Trump. --Nbauman (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mmhh, I doubt that 90% of AfD commenters are rabid Trump partisans. Check out Wikipedia:Assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups. This article might as well get rejected per WP:FART, although nobody has quoted this argument yet. — JFG ^talk 09:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, User:JFG, you are not making a serious argument and citing unofficial Wikipedia essays or jokes. The significant fact is that Trump's document destruction has been reported by multiple WP:RSs, and is therefore notable. You have not addressed that fact. Could you please do so? --Nbauman (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nbauman I've seen the soruces, and so have all editors who vote Delete or Merge. We simply apply common sense to a story that has been refused by many serious reporters, so that it has no weight. Quoting WP:FART stretches the point, but what's wrong with some humour? I doubt anybody will still talk about this story after election day, irrespective of who gets elected. — JFG ^talk 03:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I for one am not the biggest Trump fan, nor am I the biggest Clinton fan. But this article, as it stands right now, has not convinced me of its notability. All it has to its name right now is one section of information. The other sections are the mandatory "References" section and the optional "See also" section linking to Legal affairs of Donald Trump (which in fact people nominated to have this very article merged to). I understand that Wikipedia is not finished, but this article has been up for a week now, and surely if the topic is notable like the proponents have said, there'd be way more relevant information piling into this article by now, right? Parsley Man (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again: where is that guideline stating that the current length of the article requires deletion? --S I 07:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC) p.s. you are welcome to help expanding it! Just a helping hint for that: when you are looking/googling for more sources, those keep being a bit hidden and don't show up easily on the first 10 google results, because "Trump email" and similar search entries only get you Clinton results because this has been bloated so excessively by Trump's aggressive humilitating populism and media always reporting the loudest and most aggressive squaller first and only. --S I 07:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline. But like I said earlier, I sort of expect this article to have more information if the subject matter is supposed to be that notable, considering it's Trump during the 2016 presidential election. Parsley Man (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - good sourcing and since this has to be included *somewhere* the only other option is to put it in one of the already way way way too long articles on Trump or his presidential campaign. Having a separate article both follows policy and ameliorates and existing problem of bloat in those other articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The most of the sourcing is crap - alternet, the stranger, huffpo, dailykos, gawker, ensarz. once you remove those, all that's left is the newsweek and usatoday stories, which have gotten very little coverage in other RSs that have devoted acres of space to trump's scandals. If this article is worth keeping, where's the nyt, wsj, washpo, latimes? worth a sentence or two in DJT's lgal affairs. NPalgan2 (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo, MSN, NBC, MSNBC, VOX, NYmag, IBT, ... --S I 07:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the same Chris Matthews interview three times. The blog entry on WaPo's Fix+Newsweek+USAtoday+ smattering of others adds up to a line or two in another article. Having a stand-alone would be an absurd violation of WP:WEIGHT. NPalgan2 (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Works fine as a paragraph or two in Trump's article and/or the one about his legal affairs. Not much substance, as a controversy, and unlikely to escalate further, assuming he doesn't win the election. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit comment "Also, delete all trace of us ever discussing deleting it." lets assume your are not serious, are you? --S I 16:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't gained much prominence in the media and might not ever. NYT forecast currently has Trump at >95% chance of winning. God bless him. Emily Goldstein (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaannnnnddddd...what does this possible victory have anything to do with deleting this article, exactly?... Parsley Man (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it more likely the story will grow sometime over the next four years, after (or while) the media burns through the juicier stuff. Potential significant coverage isn't as good for Keep as actual coverage, but it's tipped AfDs before. I'm sticking with Delete, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No activity for the past three days or so. If there are more sources as some have claimed, I am not seeing them... Parsley Man (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Legal affairs of Donald Trump. Definitely notable, with significant, in-depth coverage from multiple WP:RS, but not enough for a separate article. If further allegations come to light, and the section gets too big, it can always be split off later. Wikishovel (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing?[edit]

Would someone mind requesting an admin to close this? There is pretty much no new discussion and it's time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who is in charge of AfDs, though... Parsley Man (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Close request filed here. — JFG ^talk 07:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Pragyanand Giri[edit]

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

Source searches are only providing passing mentions in sources. This subject does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Support per nom.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: precisely what is stated in nomination, there are one or two passing mentions nothing else. Fails WP:BIO. Anup [Talk] 22:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Coleman[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Primary refs only, no non-promotional reliable source coverage. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - there seems to also be a major financial conflict of interest issue with the creator of this article, as their user page indicates they work with the article subject. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither here nor there... Carrite (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Too soon, etc. Carrite (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far as I can tell, none of the positions she has held confers automatic notability; for example, I see no indication that she held a named chair at London University. I searched for sources and found no independent coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Head of a major foundation is the sort of thing that seems likely to cause her to become notable through WP:GNG eventually, but she's CTO, not CEO. And, so soon after her appointment, she doesn't seem to have yet received the press coverage that would be needed for GNG, and notability is not automatic for this position. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has no useful content. Redirect to Wikimedia_Foundation#Staff where we should really have more information about the 200+ nerds who figured out a way to get some money from this project. I just do it because it makes my match.com profile stand out.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of press coverage to come. --Deansfa (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may or may not happen, but it is WP:SPECULATION and thus not a valid case to make in AFD. So for now it's a delete. When and If there is lots of non-promotional significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then anyone may go to WP:DRV and make the case for re-creation. Hopefully this time from someone not financially connected to the subject. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to believe. --Deansfa (talk) 16:58, 6 November 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) 10:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton L. Cutler[edit]

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

Several source searches have demonstrated that this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Most sources that cover him are primary sources, because they are published by or affiliated with the Mormon Church, such as Ensign and Deseret News, which does not qualify notability. Non-primary sources are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only have the energy for an lol on this one. No, I can do this, because I care. Delete. Light keep I've reconsidered --J. M. Pearson (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple obituaries demonstrate notability. The Washington Post isn't affiliated with the Mormon Church. St Anselm (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StAnselm: The obituaries in the references section are all published by primary sources, which does not serve to demonstrate notability. I haven't been able to find an online link for The Washington Post article. Thus far, only one independent secondary source appears to be available, but more than one that provides significant coverage is needed to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that we can't find the source online is neither here nor there - all it needs is for the source to exist. Also, I don't think that Deseret News can be called a primary source. St Anselm (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Facebook for every eager beaver looking for recognition. My brother saved 2 people's lives. I wouldn't consider encumbering WP with his good deeds. It seems that everyone that held a job or took a crap is a candidate for Wikipedia. Why even have a review process? Let's just make it an orgy of informational love and togetherness. Why not, it's all knowledge. Just nothing anyone cares about.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ No explanation required.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Duplicate vote struck clpo13_(talk) 16:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post obituary, available via a Nexis subscription, has 78 words. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How about when he was alive, did they say anything about him then? Just curious. Practically everyone gets an obit. Is that the new minimum criteria, dying? Wouldn't surprise me.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe that "practically everyone" gets an obituary in the Washington Post, but such a short obituary is no great claim of notability in itself. I'm not offering any opinion about keeping or deleting this, but just providing some evidence about that source that I can see via my library's subscription to Nexis. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have been through this type of discussion before. The Deseret News was not controlled in any way by Cutler, and it is a regularly published paper. It is indepedent enough from Cutler to use as a source. The Washington Post obituary is fully indepdent of Cutler, and thus fully useable as a source, having an obituary is such a major paper is a sign of significance. I think even the Ensign article is more indepdent than is given credit for, but that may be a harder argument. However generally having an obituary in a leading national paper, such as the Washington Post or New York Times, is alone considered enough to show someone is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You made a good point about obits in those papers. But there's no NYT's obit from what I can see, and I checked the WP site and found nothing. I checked "Notable" obits and the regular search--nothing. Maybe their online database doesn't go back that far, not sure. You'd think if he was that notable there'd be something in "notables." But really, who cares? I don't mean to sound crass, I'm sure this was a very nice and important man to those around him. But is that enough? He was a "regional representative, stake president, stake president’s counselor, and bishop," and he got a university education.[ref] Do you know how many millions of people share titles and credentials of a similar stature? If this passes the test it's hard to imagine what couldn't. This belongs on a private memorial webpage, not an encyclopedia.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I have already said above, the Washington Post obituary does exist, but is not viewable without a subsciption, and it is 78 words long. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, I'd read that and it slipped my memory. But you didn't rebut my other point about notability. The article's subject is too run of the mill to me. I see a huge slippery slope ahead with this type of material. But maybe it's inevitable that WP should morph into a Wiki-Everything where nothing is off limits. I mean, it's not like we're wasting paper. Kind of like the "internet of things," but with knowledge.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't rebut your point because, again as I said before, I have no interest in rebutting your point, but just want to make sure that this discussion proceeds on the basis of fact rather than prejudice. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cutler was not "run of the mill", he was in the senior leadership of the LDS Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt this person was "important" to the people around him. And he probably did have some impact in his profession, but only in the same way that 100's of millions of others do every day, week, and year of their lives. And see, that's my point. Isn't that a good criteria for knowing if it's worth it? I mean, where do you draw the line with these people? The world would be shocked if Barbara Streisand didn't pop up on WP, but I don't think anyone expects to see every mid-level achiever on planet Earth. There was a time when having your name in an encyclopedia meant something. But maybe the new technology has rendered that idea obsolete. It could be that the new paradigm is that ALL people are worth a page on the knowledge of life. Every loving grandmother, every cute baby, every hard working high-schooler, anyone that's ever lived can have a listing in Wikipedia. Because that's where this is headed. We got "Busty" up for deletion, she's the one crushing beer cans with her breasts. If that isn't proof enough for my point then I don't know what is. --J. M. Pearson (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)--J. M. Pearson (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally we keep articles about high-ranking members of religious groups such as this (bishops and high-ranking clergy are comparable marks). Normally we find that after extensive search of online and offline sources that there is more than enough to surpass WP:GNG. Since this individual died in 1994, it's reasonable to assume that the sources will primarily be off-line and not on-line. I see no reason to not assume good faith at this point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And of course that all makes sense. It's not at all surprising that "high-ranking members of religious groups" would be deserving of an article. But I would argue, this article here does not fit in that category of distinguished notables. But to be fair, if you could please direct me to some comparable examples then I would be happy to concede the point. As it is I see no real proof of notability beyond this person's own sphere of influence. Thanks. --J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can check the Category:American United Methodist bishops or Category:American leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Category:Members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy (LDS Church) or Category:American Roman Catholic archbishops or Category:American Christian clergy to find good examples.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given what you've provided I have no choice but to reconsider. I guess I have yet to discover the full depth and breadth of WP in the area of notable persons. In retrospect it would have been nice had I taken the time to make a thorough check first. I've changed my above uninformed opinion to a "light keep." Thanks for your help. I'll try to be more circumspect in the future.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the LDS Second Quorum is arguably borderline (I tend to consider it += to bishop because it is such a large faith group) Cutler passes routine ANYBIO standards such as obit in major daily (LDS QUORUM MEMBER, CLINTON CUTLER, DIES; The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 10 Apr 1994) [37] and what appears to be a wire service obit that appeared in the Washington Post, the Seattle Times the Orlando Sentinel and other papers, in addition, of course, to the obit that ran in Deseret. There was also coverage of his career during his lifetime (First Presidency Releases, Thanks Four for Service: [NW Edition]) , (First Presidency Releases, Thanks Four for Service: [NW Edition], The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 06 Oct 1991: A2.

The Salt Lake Tribune [Salt Lake City, Utah] 06 Oct 1991: A2. ), and more similar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 8 November 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) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Gerry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GRIDIRON without question and does not provide sources showing it passes WP:GNG in any way either. JTtheOG (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest part is that it's being "considered" for deletion. I think there needs to be a faster button for those people laughing too hard to offer their opinion. Is there a suggestion box some place? Oh, I forgot, ~~Delete.~~ Speedy delete--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I just went back and read notability guidelines for sports, this article doesn't even pass Basic Criteria.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gerry is a three-year starter for Nebraska, has had an outstanding 2016 senior season, and is a semifinalist for the 2016 Chuck Bednarik Award. See here. He was also named to the 2016 mid-season All-America team. See here. Also rated as one of the top five cornerback prospects in the upcoming NFL Draft. See here. Also Big Ten Defensive Player of the Week back in mid-September. See here. See also (1) this AP feature story (picked up by multiple papers across the country, e.g., here and here) as a further example of the significant coverage he has received. See also significant coverage (2) here, (3) here, (4) here, and (5) here. Based on the foregoing significant coverage, he passes under WP:GNG. The national coverage represented by the AP story may also pass under the third prong of WP:NCOLLATH. Cbl62 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, man, your stats are a drop in the ocean of sports statistics. My friend, you are missing the whole tone and tenor of WP. This ain't going to work with articles like this one-- promotional, personal, with its look-at-me-and-what-I-did, kind of nonsense. I'm like one week old in WP, but I don't even have to run to the guidelines for this one, it stinks. This is Facebook material and not at all suited for a top 10 website dealing with education and knowledge. I won't even give you a seat for discussion on this one. It's so gauche with its vanity for attention that it slaps one in the face with its under achiever striving. Forget it. If this gets in then just turn out the lights and let the animals roam. Because there ain't no rules any more.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, J. M.! As someone with one week's experience on Wikipedia, you might want to review WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH. They should provide you with a stronger foundation for understanding the applicable standards. Perhaps after reviewing these items, you will reconsider your decision to deny me "a seat for the discussion". In the meantime, let's let others weigh in on the merits of this one before we turn out the lights or free the animals. Cbl62 (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a million of these out there in the world. Every profession, every drain pipe, every place to be, has above average "mediocres" that sparkle but don't shine, that are tall but not tall enough. Why do you have to push this kind of material, are you the guy? His brother? Does he have cancer and this is his last wish, to be on Wikipedia? I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this. I'm not even going to try and sound smart and quote the guidelines. There needs to be a paradigm shift in thinking in here or WP is going to die. What you have, that shouldn't garner more than 3 minutes of consideration before incineration. It's an encyclopedia, not a repository for every wanna-be on planet Earth looking for attention. Thanks for understanding, have a nice life.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG with sources provided by Cbl62. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I bet you did that with glee. Oh I forgot, it's football season. Of course it passes muster. Now there needs to be a WikiTHIS and a WikiTHAT for everything. Glad I'm helping. You're going to need it for this new social networking club that used to be Wikipedia.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you think football players shouldn't have articles? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have nothing against football players, this isn't personal. I think I made my point earlier well enough and in the most blunt way possible. WP needs to hire a Simon Cowell that knows how to deal with these WP wannabes that don't deserve it. If this gets in then next week the bar gets lowered even more, and more, and more, until finally this site is in the dumpster. I have a problem with those who experience a slight good spell in life thinking they are worthy of worldwide recognition. I don't even need the guidelines for this one, and if I did this site wouldn't be worth it. This is commonsense. Well good luck with all this and enjoy the game next Sunday. There won't be any cheers for Wikipedia, that's for sure.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage found during AFD and other sources show a clear pass of Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Other comments are irrelevant to the discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Sir, I got your message. I see now why you felt the need to chide me for my candid approach, you have a vested interest in the matter. I guess I'm too new in here to have a valued opinion. I don't know the right people in WP's clique, apparently. I'll make sure and stay away from footballers and soccer fans in the future. And as much as it would pain me to be banned, it wouldn't brake my heart either. If frank truth is too much to handle in here then I wouldn't fit in anyway. Regards. And good luck from now on dealing with every grandma that ever baked a tasty cookie and high-schooler that ever threw a completed pass. Cuz that's what you're doing with this tainted thumbs up. Hope you're getting paid well. --J. M. Pearson (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who do you think should have an article? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who? Someone who ain't a "who?" bad diction on purpose.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - And one more thing, I'm fully aware that I'm out of line here. I wouldn't think of trying to maintain this tone forever. It's not my intention to insult anyone. I just truly felt this needed to be done. Please don't take offense, anyone. I'll chill, but I'm still going to be frank if the situation calls for it.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please review WP:AVOIDYOU -- avoiding personal attacks and please keep your comments to the issue at hand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't like your threatening tone. You guys would never appreciate someone like me. Let's see, how does that line go? Oh yeah, "You can't handle the truth." Five years from now you'll wish you had more people like me. But by then it will be too late. I'm going to take a break from this and decide if it's worth it. I feel jaded already--J. M. Pearson (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Who do you consider to not be a "who"? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Goodness. Sounds like a loaded question, like "When are you going to stop beating your wife." You are asking a vague question about an infinite set of possibilities. I'll sum, no proposed article should be judged based on its own self-imposed standards. And I know that makes sense to you. And that's what you guys are getting in WP 50 times a day, and endless parade of "show-and-tell" stories from anyone over the age of six. Then there's a million years wasted trying to be exceedingly fair and impartial for articles that only take up space. Done for now, have to work. They're talking about me in admin, probably going to ban my dangerous presence. But I have a feeling I've touched a valued nerve someplace.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it get past,"reliable sources that are independent of the subject" from GNG, and "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent," from Basic? You may be right, but I'm curious to know. Please help me understand.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the news sources. Gerry isn't working for those news networks who wrote about him, so they are independent of the subject. Published can mean published by airing it in a TV broadcast or putting it on the Internet, not necessarily published in a book or magazine. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the reliable sources listed above. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:50, 3 November 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moon_River_(Andrea_Ross_album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moon River (Andrea Ross album)

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

An unknown album by an unknown singer supported by one reference that is behind a paywall. The album is not remarkable and artist is not notable. Bwabwa7 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an Allmusic review of the album, but not enough coverage to justify an article. Better covered within the Andrea Ross article. A redirect from this title would be useless - any searches for this album can be covered by the entry at Moon River (disambiguation), which should be changed to link to the singer's article if this is deleted. --Michig (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Barely passes WP:NALBUM by charting in the UK at position 42. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very brief and minor success. Could be a sentence on the page for Andrew Lloyd Webber. The All Music review seemed to focus more on Webber than Ross and that was contemporary to the release (nearly a decade ago) bsarnacki (talk) 04:30, 22 November 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) 10:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkara Balaparameswara Rao[edit]

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

A non-notable doctor. The citations presented doesn't comply with WP:RS, and some of them are even dead. There is no much coverage in the news. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:ACADEMIC #3 as a Fellow of the National Academy of Medical Sciences and WP:ANYBIO as winner of the Dr. B. C. Roy Award, which is given by the president of India. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete TNT. all sourced from poor SPS sources, and has unsourced content. Clearly PROMO and would need to be written from scratch from independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC) striking, see below Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Removed unsourced contents and majority of primary sources. Tnt is not applicable now.

Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC:

#2 - Dr. B. C. Roy Award,

#3 - Member of British Medical Association, Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene and New York Academy of Sciences,

#5 - Emeritus Professor, National Academy of Medical Sciences.

-Anup [Talk] 01:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok to keep now, TNT was done by Anup. Jytdog (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as since nomination the article has been improved and proper sourcing supplied to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Mansale[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that previously deleted version and this version are too different justify. However, the underlying notability concerns remain. He has still not played in a fully pro league or a senior national team, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT, nor has he received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Foot-ball's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not played in a fully professional league. Joseph2302 06:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 06:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 06:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 06:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no improvement on previous article Spiderone 19:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he plays in a semi=pro league and thus does not pass our inclusion guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Simione001 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gunjan Sharma[edit]

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

I still confirm my PROD which motioned and emphasized having one simple local "bravery" award and having another named after her, is quite trivial and unconvincing, and it goes to state the same for Americans, because the listed sources themselves are simply trivial and unconvincing, nothing amounting to actual substance. The history also speaks for itself in that there's literally nothing else aside from this one award, which is a state award, not a major award. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references show that WP:GNG is passed for a notable act of bravery which is one event, the other event is having a bravery award named after her, a state award is still notable. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete getting an award for being a brave teenager is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Also this is a single-event popularity. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is totally the case of WP:BIO1E. Getting an award named after own name is kind of significant achievement but still it is one-event. The event itself is not notable. Anup [Talk] 14:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Model of the World 1990[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner is already included in the Miss Model of the World article. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notabile enough for year by year coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior outcomes; yearly articles covering pageants that are marginally notable themselves are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:06, 15 November 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 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Model of the World 1989[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner is already included in the Miss Model of the World article. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notabile enough for year by year coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 4 November 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) 10:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brand.com[edit]

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

Fails GNG. It looks like there are a lot of references but several of them are press releases. Some of them aren't even about the company at all and are about the practice of reputation management. The ones that are left are about the purchase of the brand.com domain -- which isn't something that makes the company merit an entry in an encyclopedia. The account is pretty close to an SPA too. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:CORP per in-depth coverage in Quartz, bizjournals, technical.ly, and techchrunch. Some of other references are of no use for determining notability, but I think these ones are solid. SmartSE (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SmartSE... and also for some off-the-policy practical reasons. While I'm not sure which account CKY is calling an SPA, there were pretty clearly several involved that were working on the behalf of the company. That this company that specialized in online reputation control and even specifically advertised their ability to control your Wikipedia page were unable to even control their own Wikipedia page (thanks to the diligent efforts of several non-SPA editors) makes it a nice head-on-a-pike to keep in place. (But that just moves it for me from a "weak keep" to a "keep".) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Whether the article was created by an SPA or not is immaterial for this discussion. I think the nom should focus on the merits whether it is notable or not. If it is heavily promotional then a rewrite to tone it down should be the next thing and if this can't rescue the article then WP:KIBOSH can be employed here. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 17:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only are the listed sources simply republished PR with the blatant noticeable parts of the company's own words, but that's what I found myself, hence there's literally nothing else open to compromising, especially considering this current article itself has nothing but said PR and republished PR. Case closed if that's all this company got in its 6 years of life. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SwisterTwister: Can you please explain your rationale further? I don't understand why you think there is only rehashed PR available. Quartz were very scetical of their claims, arctechnica explain how they created fake news articles and technical.ly discuss how their links were penalised by google and detail the company's bankruptcy. SmartSE (talk) 13:58, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For one, the BizJournals can never be taken seriously as they literally republish whatever the company itself wants and the same can also be said for TechCrunch (we have established consensus for not allowing BJ and TC as notability sources here at AfD), even then the one other listed source is then trivial and unconvincing, none of this amounts to substance. Therefore, republishing the company's own advertisements as shown in the BizJournals and TechCrunch shows it's certainly not independent nor should we mistake it as such. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SmartSE and the sources mentioned. SwisterTwister advances the argument that an article including sources harshly critical of the company is "republished PR". That assessment is, to put it charitably, stunningly lacking in logic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources as shown on this AFD and on the article currently. Waiting with interest for the response from @SwisterTwister: to explain their reasoning. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Emergency Physicians[edit]

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

Defunct organization; their official page no longer loads. Can't find any official site for the organization searching by name, or previous contact information (like phone number). No third-party references were provided originally, and none are found at this time. Mikeblas (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this book briefly mentions the association, saying that it "has not gained any measure of political power or influence in organized medicine", so I'd say not notable (although that is more in the real-life sense of the word). --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:13, 12 November 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. Low participant count - feel free to renom if appropriate. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 22:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Placentia station[edit]

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

This station has been proposed since 2005. The construction and opening date have been pushed back for years and years; per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we should wait to have this article until there is more concrete evidence that this station will actually exist. Additionally, I did not locate significant coverage of the topic. James (^talk/_contribs) 03:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - In June, 2016, the Orange County Register reported that this station has been approved by the Orange County Transportation Authority. [38] That is beyond "proposed." --Oakshade (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important development; coverage does exist. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EGO Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, "Alter Ego Records" and "No Ego Records" also exist, but seem to be independent of "EGO records" Kleuske (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:GNG and WP:V - this article appears to be closely related to a band Grupo Exterminador which is moderately notable in Latino band scenes. While it has apparently gone by other names the core team and their volume of work seems pretty notable to me. I admit that the sourcing could be a bit stronger but there are a substantial number of books and journal articles that discuss this topic; while of course this could use a bit of expansion and updating (which I see is going on here thanks to the tireless efforts of myself and several other contributors!), it should of course not be deleted. Thanks! Michellechapman (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sorry, Michellechapman, just because the group is notable, it doesn't mean the label is notable – see WP:INHERITORG, and this label doesn't meet WP:V or WP:GNG in the slightest. Furthermore, Grupo Exterminador only released one album on EGO Records before moving on, so the label can hardly claim to be "closely related" to the group. The section about Serebro needs to be removed as well, because the Ego Music label they recorded for is a completely different label - the Grupo Exterminador label is a California-based label founded in 1992 specialising in music from north Mexico, the Serebro label is an Italian dance music label founded in 2004. So take that away and all we are left with is one non-notable album released on EGO Records – not enough for an article and failing WP:ORGDEPTH.

I found a history of EGO Records on a blog which details the groups signed to the label, but I won't link it here because (a) it's in Spanish, (b) it brings up pop-up windows so the website could contain viruses. Suffice to say, Raza Obrera seems to have been the most famous act signed to the label – over the years it also signed Los Ligeros de Zacateca, Los Zafiros del Norte, El Mariachi Moya, Los Ander's, Conjunto Michoacán, Los Reyes de Sonora, Reyna María, Los Compas de la Frontera, Las Magueyeras and others... none of whom are well-known names outside their specialised market. There don't seem to be any other reliable sources about this label. Richard3120 (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not only is there not inherited notability, there's then nothing for an actual independent and notable article, with nothing else suggesting such, therefore deletion is the only option. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 7 November 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] Guo, Jeff. "Wikipedia is fixing one of the Internet's biggest flaws". The Washington Post. In their data, they noticed that people often targeted pages of the opposite political persuasion. Left-leaning contributors were more likely to make changes on right-leaning Wikipedia pages, and vice versa.

[1]