Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 October	19 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Club Brugge KV season[edit]

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

empty page Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 18:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic meets WP:NSEASONS, being an article about a club from a fully-professional league's season in said fully-professional league. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 08:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NSEASONS.
Neutral - page was empty but has since been improved by User:Matt294069. The original article was created just for pure vandalism, see this and in fact currently the article is basically a list of players, hardly what one would call an article. Barely worthy of having its place on wikipedia. Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 18:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the person who is improving this article, I would say keep as its needs improving not being deleted as they are requesting. Matt294069 is coming 23:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Courvoisier[edit]

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

Deleted last year where it was shown nothing suggested any actual significance and substance for notability and that's what this is currently now, again with only advertising information and complete with professional photos; the history then shows 2 particular accounts involved with this and their other contributions suggest this is part of a PR campaign, not surprising considering that, although this may be sourced and informed, none of it takes away the noticeable PR and then the fact these said sources are in fact simply trivial and unconvincing. My own searches are then not finding anything but exactly this. SwisterTwister talk 23:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTRESUME, and nom. This is transparently an attempt to have us, a charity provide PR for a non-notable radio personality. Radio DJs are rarely notable, since there are just so many of them. Bearian (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. as G5. There is even less in the way of sources than in thedeleted article, but much more puffery. This doesn ot meet the reasons for deletion at the previous AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local television figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China Okasi[edit]

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

The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. This has not been shown.

No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. This has not been shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeraldoAbbson (talk • contribs) 03:26, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 20:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the nominator of this afd has only made a few edits outside this article (nothing since creating this afd on 1 September), including adding 15 tags to an article of under 300 words, a case of WP:OVERTAG? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable. Maybe too soon. Maybe someday. Quis separabit? 03:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are zero reliable sources for this BLP. Its just too soon as of now. Bearian (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Of Tomorrow[edit]

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

This film does not appear to be notable, as there do not appear to be any reliable, independent sources. Thegreatgrabber (talk) ^contribs 23:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 5 minute documentary that we mad last year. We released it on YouTube. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6S5CUHpkwE . I hope this is enough for you to approve this page of ours. If not, could you please specify the requirements to be eligible?

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafsaarabb (talk • contribs) 10:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be offended. Wikipedia cannot have articles on every YouTube documentary; we have a rule called the General notability guideline, which requires that subjects here have received coverage - been written about - by independent reliable sources. That doesn't seem to have happened with your film. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails notability under WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This short film has not received any outside recognition and fails WP:MOVIE. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plus One (band). Protection does not seem to be necessary but if asked for can be requested at WP:RFPP. It doesn't seem that there is consensus on a merge, but certainly on removing the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Cole[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Notability seems to derive from being a member of Plus One. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No more sign of notability than there was all the previous times this article has been deleted. --Deskford (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete, possibly then making a protected redirect to Plus One (band) (else just salt) - David Gerard (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Plus_One_(band), which is our usual compromise solution in such cases where a solo musician isn't really that notable outside of his work with the old band. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Plus One (band), where he is already covered in some detail. No need for addition merging; no need to delete before redirecting. If there is a problem with the article being re-created, the redirect could be protected. (I would note that the previous deletions were in the period 2007-2009.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ossai Ovie Success[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Cannot inherit notability by working with Delta State Governor Sen. Arthur Okowa Ifeany - blogging is not a notable enough hobby to receive your own WP:BLP. Not that it matters but the photo looks to be terribly photoshopped as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable political aid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bloggers can qualify for articles on Wikipedia because blogger, if the volume and depth of reliable source coverage is considerably greater than what's shown here — but one reference is not enough to get there, and "civil servant in a state government" is not an automatic notability freebie either. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. consensus; DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Magazine[edit]

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

per WP:GNG Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I honestly consider this speedy material, I'm not finding anything which is unsurprising and it all essentially boils to there being no actual significance or substance. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely cited historical magazine and one of the first of its kind in Canada. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here.--TM 23:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be of great historical interest, but needs better sourcing. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per common sense views expressed on the essay Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)#Non-contemporary periodicals. Historic significance, as evidenced (and just one example) by this periodical being referenced in the chronology of Canada list in the 2004 book The Cambridge Companion to Canadian Literature. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thanks to User:Namiba, Xxanthippe and 1Wiki8........................... for their very strong and wonderful support, I have nothing to add to their comments. Spem Reduxit (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
note perhaps Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ and SwisterTwister would like to review their nomination and !vote? If they agree, this AFD can be quickly closed so folks can get back to more important things. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you disagree doesnt mean we're wrong. Lets let the AfD run its normal week long progress and also no one is forced to be here. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want this AFD to remain as a prime example of your work, then so be it. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 considering the subject is in fact notable and the nominator has now been uncovered as a past advertising account of another advertising user (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo Jay[edit]

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

~~Article creator is a PR and a publicist. This is a case of WP:PAID and Conflict of interest.~~ Historical Ben (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only popular Nigerian music award is The Headies, MTV Africa Music Award (The MAMAs) & Nigeria Entertainment Award (NEA Awards).. Winners or act nominated for this awards are mostly chosen based on popularity.. That to say the article passes criteria 2 & 8 of WP:MUSICIAN. Since wikipedia did not note that the award must be a "major" so I don't think we should be adding our interpretation to it. Ayo Jay doesn't meet WP:GNG.. Since the article meet's two out of all it's criteria, it's set to be notable. It is also stated in WP:MUSICBIO that NOT all notable articles must meet WP:GNG. I understand it doesn't meet WP:GNG but it meets WP:MUSICBIO.--Obari2Kay (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep the subject passes GNG per Rolling Stone, RESPECT. Magazine, OkayAfrica, Premium Times and The Source, all thanks to his single "Your Number". Aside that, he is signed to a major record imprint, won and nominated some major awards and has charted thrice on Billboard.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this afd should be closed as the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sock per this thread.

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as created by a block-evading editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qasymbek (given name)[edit]

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

Non-notable subject. The article was created by an editor who is the sock of a blocked editor Оразбаев Касымбек, and was tagged for deletion per CSD G5. (See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Оразбаев Касымбек/Archive for earlier incarnations)

Tag was removed, bring to AfD as there aren't references to show notability, and sock in the past has used false sources to try to show notability. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also to note that this subject has been deleted and salted in different spellings (see Qasymbek, Kasymbek ( male name), Kasymbek (given name) for previous articles created. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasymbek (given name). – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article includes a list of four people with the name and even if we leave out the two Gasim Beys, there's enough to meet the requirements of WP:APONOTE. – Uanfala (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article, under this name, was deleted already yesterday by admin JamesBwatson, this particular sock puppet is determined XyzSpaniel Talk Page 21:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note I've now created Qasymbek. – Uanfala (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The possibility of merging in the future is, as ever, an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Klingon Way[edit]

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

Non-notable (fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK). WP:TNT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Widefox; talk 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, I was not able to find a single book review that could help with WP:NBOOK. Anything salvageable can be moved to Marc Okrand though without sources there really isn't anything to save. - Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of copies and general reviews at Goodreads and Abebooks. Did someone notify the Star Trek project about this? It seems like a good start of a page, and of course, as do tens of thousands of pages, it needs citations, but there is no reason to delete. Randy Kryn 16:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As in, no WP:RS. That is a reason to delete per WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many new sources added on October 9 (see below), including an audiobook and its review by the Calgary Herald. Widefox, good job in pushing article improvement with this page, but maybe now please consider withdrawing this nomination? Thanks. Randy Kryn 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing still (11/10/16) fails GNG and NBOOK (see below). Widefox; talk 12:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Delete per nom. If more real-world context and third-party sourcing was available I might be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not finding evidence that that level of improvement is realistically attainable. DonIago (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the total lack of independent reliable sources either cited in the article or found by the various searches linked above, and this is a topic for which sources could be expected to be available online. Reviews in Goodreads and Abebooks are user generated, so it doesn't matter how many of them there might be. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source, here is one source that mentions the book, from the Washington City Paper (which has a page here). There are many internet sources and reviews, but at least this one is a "real" publication. Randy Kryn 17:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The grand total of the coverage in that article is the single sentence, 'Meanwhile, Okrand has just released The Klingon Way: A Warrior’s Guide, featuring a slew of Klingon proverbs: “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”'. How can that one sentence in a local newspaper be the basis of an encyclopedia article? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It confirms that the book exists, confirms that is contains a "slew" of Klingon proverbs (which is a basis of the page), and even quotes one. Is that really a Klingon proverb? I thought it was an older saying, or maybe the Klingon's picked it up on a radio broadcast (and I thought Klingons like all of their dishes served either cold or wriggling). Will look for more sources later. Randy Kryn 20:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Revenge#Proverbs for evidence that this proverb didn't originate with this book, or with Klingons. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to claim that this proverb quoted by me as an example of the book structure is something originally "Klingon". Claiming that would be: 1) presenting own reasearch rather than documented research; 2) accepting an "in-universe approach". It was just an example, chosen by me by hazard, and nothing more.noychoH (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn [1] is a passing mention so doesn't count for one of minimum two in WP:NBOOK 1. Without a single WP:RS this is an argument to delete, per my nom. It doesn't even meet GNG or NBOOK. Not one RS so far, I couldn't find one quickly which is why I nommed per WP:BEFORE. Widefox; talk 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many reasons why I object to deletion (apart from the fact that I have created the article) are presented in the talk page to the article. The final one is that I believe in Wikiedia as a communal creation, I have created the basic stub, somone has added it to soem Wiki-community projects, someone will add some sources with quotations etc. Rome wasn't built in a day, it is very easy to destroy (delete), it is hard and time consuming to create. The attitude of the users who prefer destroying others' work to improving and commonly building is one of the reasons why many of my friedns have stopped working with Wikipedia altogether and I am also more often reluctant to start someting new, fearing that my effort would be destroyed by some fanatic of perfection from the very beginning. (no offence meant). noychoH (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What more, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Widefox, by reverting on 01:00, 30 September 2016 my edition, has deleted in fact several improvements introduced by me to the original article after his original critique - and despite my request in his discussion page to restore my editions first before adding the AfD template anew, he has not done it, although he has confirmed having read my request. (I have made my request to him to be polite to him and honest with him and also in order not to be accused of entering a war of editions). Unfortunately, I had technical problems with connecting to Wikipedia 24 hours ago, so I couldn't revert his edit myself, once having realised that he is not willing to show a bit of undertanding. ~~Now I have to describe his attitude as not fully honest.~~ noychoH (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, noychoH didn't dePROD as claimed [2], so I correctly took that as contesting the PROD, and waited for the dePROD, waited, messaged [3], waited, then took to AfD. noychoH then incorrectly removed the AfD (rather than PROD) [4] which I correctly reverted [5]. NoychoH, can you say what's not honest about me following policy? I've even explained your error to you here [6]. That accusation is a gross violation of WP:AGF, which reflects on you not me. Care to see the facts and strike? Widefox; talk 22:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the annoucement on dePRODING appeared on your talk page and the (earlier) act of dePRODing did not appear, there were some technical problems with my connection to Wikipedia for a few hours, so when I have realized that the dePRODing did not appear I have reinstated it, that's all. Your have reverted not only the dePROD template but all the 312 character long edit. When I got a connection again I saw that, and I have written to you explaining what happened and why, but you didn't react. Then I've lost the connection again and this has lasted till this morning. Now, above I did not say anything about your following the policy - as you could see, even yesterday I accepted it as a fact. But, following a policy is a formal rule that can be done by a machine as well. - I was talking about your lack of reaction to the whole situation, after you have read my request - which is related to a more human approach of understanding the context of the situation, the other's difficulties etc. I would have thanked you, had you paid attention to my request, but you just skipped over it. I didn't mean to offend you. Excuse me. noychoH (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want the whole issue to start resembling a personal dispute between two Users. Let it not cover the main point of this dicsussion: whether the article is good (even if only as a starting point), encyclopedic, needed, etc. and worth to be kept, or not. noychoH (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just check the edits, you undid the AfD not PROD. That is not allowed. End of story. This is both offtopic and moot. Without sources this will be deleted. Please see WP:ILIKE. Widefox; talk 23:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one final word to explain myself. It was not done with the undoing or reverting. Having realised that my editions were not saved to Wikipedia, I have simply copied and pasted the whole text of my edition from my notepad (where I usually paste it before clicking Save), without even realising that you had alread changed PROD into AfD (Maybe even my computer didn't show it, and showed something from the cache instead?? I've told you already that there were some technical problems that night). noychoH (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's now 6 sources, 2x trivial mentions (doesn't count for notability), and 4x others from Klingon Language Institute which according to our article is not fully independent of the author / advocacy group, so doesn't count for notability. I've tagged the article third party sources. There's still zero third party RS for notability. Widefox; talk 23:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The more specialized the subject, the less possibility that there is an independent review different from a "trivial mention" (who is able to make a noteworthy review of a book on Bembe or Yukaghir language if one does not know the language? Who can spot printing errors in Klingon words if not a person who speaks Klingon? And most of those who are able to understand and speak or even write in Klingon, are members of the KLI, for practical reasons). The Wikpedia articles on higher algebra only cite the sources of those who practice higher algebra, often of their own professors. This does not mean they belong to their advocacy group.

It is obvious that a given Shakespeare Society's publication are highly dependant on Shakespeare, likewise KLI's publication, concentrating on the Klingon language as its object of research, are highly dependant on Klingon language resources, and these are not so numerous. Nevertheless HolQeD during 13 years of its existence was a reputed linguistic journal, with articles listed in the MLA reference publications. The articles published there are not "hymns to the praise of Marc Okrand" but they treat the subject in a neutral way. They admit his authority in the matters where he constitutes a real authority, like creation of new words, but not necessarily otherwise (similarly as Zamenhof constituted an authority in the beginning of the Esperanto movement for the authors of Esperanto dictionaries and grammars, but not necessarily in everything). Especially one should take take into consideration context of the lawsuits concerning the intelectual property rights to Klingon language (Marc Okrand alone was comissioned by the Paramount Pictures to create/build the Klingon language and authorised to develop it subsequently). Your opinion on HolQeD based on the Wikpedia article Klingon Language Institute is at the best a hasty overinterpretation of the information contained within that article (leading to a grave misinterpretation of the facts). Neither KLI as a whole nor single KLI members publishing their articles in HolQeD do belong to Marc Okrand's advocacy group. Nor is Marc Okrand a member of KLI, or a person related to the board, he is just their guest from time to time.

In my talk page I have typed in some excerpts from the review by Captain Krankor, in oder to show you (an the others interested) the level of scholarly work and independent research (beyond simply quoting Marc Okrand) done. noychoH (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's merit in the level of independence argument, that source still doesn't count per WP:NBOOK 1. This excludes... author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book (emphasis own). Even if it was a WP:RS (which should be taken to the WP:RSN) - how can we build an WP:NPOV article if the only sources are from a) one source b) which is an advocacy group? WP is WP:NOT WP:SOAPBOX, we're not an extension of one website. Widefox; talk 10:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Delete it anyhow~~ - I can see that the more the article is improved, the more objections from Widefox does it raise. He introduces new tags but does not care to remove the tags that are no more valid or are obviously false from the beginning, like the {in-universe|date=September 2016} one. It seems to me that the article will be deleted anyhow, so it is a waste of time to try to improve it. noychoH (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See [7]. Widefox; talk 00:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(excuse me, I've removed the non-applicable tags, anyone could have done it BTW). Widefox; talk 00:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of your previous reactions I was afraid of removing anything introduced by you, not to be accused of e.g. starting edit-wars. Who can delete tags if not the one who has introduced them (who else can know the intention behind a tag than the one who introduced it)? But encouraged by you, I understand now that after making some more improvements, I am now allowed to delete the tags as well.

The problem is that you seem to be very strict about everything (too strict in fact, to my taste. E.g. your presumption of bad faith on my side on an accidental replacing of your signature with some meaningless content (yet not being a vandalism) - how does it differ from my earlier words about your not being fully honest, apart from the words themselves being used? It's not a rhetorical question so if you answer me, I'd like to know your opinion. But it's OK, if you don't want to, dont't worry, just think about it. I have now striked through my earlier words, to wit, previously I didn't fully understand what you meant by: "Care to see the facts and strike?", I think this is a shortcut that allows for different interpretations, anyhow, I was more concentrating on "see the facts" and why you don't want to see the other side of the facts.

I have explained in your talk page why I consider this space to be a relevant place for this kind of discussion in this context. noychoH (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi noychoH. Maybe you should ~~strike out~~ either your "Keep" or "Delete" comment, as you've now 'voted' both ways. It's a good page, so I hope you remove your delete comment. ~~Some editors are what we call 'deletionists', and they will find reasons to delete just about anything they set their mind to~~. I don't know why. But please don't ~~let it discourage you enough to~~ delete your own page, which might have to be called it's own genre of editor (self-deletionists?), defined as "Those who create good pages and then lobby to delete them even as they try to improve them". A symbol for self-deletionists can be designed which they can put on the top of their user page. What goes around comes around, and then gets deleted. Randy Kryn 15:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't some childish dispute between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", but an issue of whether this article conforms to the basic requirement of being based on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you and NoychoH and NoychoH's friends want to write about things that don't belong in Wikipedia then there are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can do so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Randy Kryn, for your advice. noychoH (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:86.17.222.157 is right. Attempts to personalise just indicate being too emotionally involved and get in the way of core principles. The AGF violations have gone too far and are tiresome. What is this anyhow, a fan thing, POV pushing or a WP:COI? Hey, I'm a Star Trek fan but suggest this is Salted to prevent further attempts at recreation and abuse of other volunteers. This is just not acceptable noychoH. Widefox; talk 09:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely do not understand what you mean, as a whole. (I am not a Star Trek fan, I am just "fan" of the Klingon language and other constructed languages, just like authors of the articles on higher algebra are "fans" of mathematics. And I am not against other users improving on what I have done, just the contrary). But I am not familiar with discussions using a hundred of acronyms instead of normal words. It's like instead od saying "understand" I would say COD1266-7 (leaving for you to divine that I mean "Concise Oxford Ditionary [of Current English, sixth edition, 1976], pages 1266-1267, and which of the numerous meaning contained within the article on "understand" do I mean). Your are breaking the basic rules of human communication, and Randy Kryn was right in describing your attitude, and I start wondering if have been right in striking out what I have striked out. You may ban me now, if you like. Anyhow, I am also tired with all this, and since now on I shall not say a word. Let it go as it goes. noychoH (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(linked above). WP:FAN seems to be the most pertinent, where concentrating on notability is helpful. Trying to retain this article in the face of our policies is what? Calling others names (ad hominem) just because they don't agree with you reflects badly, and I advise to strike this nonsense. (I've given a L3 warning to the editor that this is unacceptable, despite two of us pointing this out). Widefox; talk 12:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a deletionist is not a "name", it's a description (Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia). I'm a self-defined inclusionist. And the above "If you and NoychoH and NoychoH's friends want to write about things that don't belong in Wikipedia..." qualifies as deletionist language, so pointing that out is not nonsense or calling names, but a factual point in this discussion. Randy Kryn 13:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not "deletionist language", but simply a statement of Wikipedia's core principles and an attempt to help you find an outlet for such writings. I have no time for anyone who defines themselves as either "deletionist" or "inclusionist", because they are both childish tribal labels that take no account of the policies and guidelines agreed here by consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The Irish Times is a very reliable source, and combined with other sources the article is now well-sourced, is a topic which many readers are interested in, and the original author has added to the page and has accurately defended this page. Some editors who still want this page deleted may think that articles about the Klingon language do not belong in Wikipedia, as was mentioned in the above discussion, but the language seems to be very well documented, sourced, and a part of both the Star Trek culture and the real-world culture. With the addition of the sources, especially The Irish Times, maybe this deletion request should be withdrawn. Full disclosure, I am a fan but not a fanatic about Star Trek, do not speak or write Klingon or know anyone who does (besides NoychoH, who I've just "met" after coming upon his new page, and who I've asked to tell me how my user name would be written and pronounced in Klingon and he has ignored my polite request! Grrr, roar, gnnork), but I do believe that articles about the language are perfectly fine as subjects to be covered in this encyclopedia, and that this article is now a very good page pertaining to the subject thanks in large part to the pressure put upon it by this deletion discussion. Randy Kryn 13:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See above (passing mentions don't count for notability per WP:GNG and "non-trivial" in WP:NBOOK). Restating it does nothing, as what you believe is irrelevant in the face of basics such as WP:N and WP:RS. I count zero refs for notability (above). Best to focus on finding sources for notability rather than blaming the messenger and speculating the motivations of other editors per WP:AGF. Widefox; talk 20:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out above that the Washington City Paper only had one sentence about the subject, so doesn't amount to significant coverage, but The Irish Times has even less than that, as it covers five books in a single sentence. As I've already said, I'm sure that there are wikis for fans of constructed languages and/or Star Trek on the Internet that welcome such original research, but Wikipedia doesn't. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for calling you a deletionist. I don't know if you are or not, and have not looked at your contributions page. It just makes me sad the few times I've been involved in deletion discussions how many good pages must be removed on a daily and weekly basis, and I'm taking that out on you guys. And I want to assure you that I have no interest in writing about Klingon language on any blog, but thank you for the suggestion. I know as much about the language as I do about any obscure tribal language. But it is a language, and there certainly seems nothing wrong in having Wikipedia articles about it, so I was a bit confused why you kept wanting me to write on a blog and that this seemingly accepted language doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You are apparently saying it in good faith, so I'll respect your point of view. But since other articles about the language exist on Wikipedia, and this has been called a canonical book by the languages' leading journal, it seems like an easy Keep now. This is mainly because you and Widefox pushed the original writer, and I fell into it while on an italics run, and helped out at first because it's a Star Trek related page. Then you've pushed both of us, and I think the page shaped up under that deletion pressure. But now I think it's fine, and those journal cites should probably be the thing saving it. Randy Kryn 1:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a powerful argument. How can it be fine with 0 (zero) RS (per above notability)? Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer, there are multiple cites on the page from HolQeD. The Journal of the Klingon Language Institute, which was published quarterly for 13 years by the Klingon Language Institute. Now, if this was a book about medicine, or about astronomy, or just about anything, a professional journal apparently respected as the main journal of the subject, in this case the Klingon language, would be accepted immediately as a source. Why not this one? If you notice in some of the above comments, I've been told several times that if I and others want to write about this subject that we should take it to some kind of blog. I've seldom seen this type of bad faith at Wikipedia~~, and I've stopped answering those comments~~. I don't care a hoot about the Klingon language, but it seems to be a notable subject both here and elsewhere. And its top organization, the Klingon Language Institute, which used to publish the accepted journal of the field, a journal which is referenced several times on the page, calls The Klingon Way one of the canon books in that field. If the Journal of the American Medical Association called a book a canon in its field, that source would be accepted without question. I think the same courtesy should be extended to this page. Randy Kryn 22:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One source (and an advocacy one at that) for a whole article doesn't fit our core principles (per above). This is better elsewhere like a specialist wiki as correctly recommended. Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect to author. Trim unreferenced stuff. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, c'mon, this is an important book, we may as well delete the articles on the Oxford dictionary or the Bible's Book of Proverbs!, anyway, disappointing that the author article, doesn't have more on this book, so if this article goes under, a paragraph could be added there. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marc Okrand (and protect it) We require reliable third party sources specifically so that we know that the topic was noticed by the world at large and we do not become a collection of indiscriminate information. The Klingon institute is too affiliated to be of use here. I think a redirect is best here. If at all any information needs to be merged (though I don't see a reason for merging), it will be available from the history. Personally, I think for stuff like this Wikia is the best place to create articles. The Wikis over there are specifically devoted to a particular fandom and also edited by enthusiasts. It's a great way of preserving information not suitable for a general purpose encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer if we redirect (which is also fine by me), then please protect to prevent recreation and a repeat of abuse per above. Widefox; talk 09:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree. This definitely needs to be protected. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to Mark Okrand. The Klingon Institute-related sources establish that the book is of interest to some readers, but the independent sources aren't sufficient to establish notability apart from Okrand or Klingon fandom. Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment to closer, there are only 15 blue linked pages in List of Star Trek reference books, and this is now one of them (the listing was red-linked before). Please note the words and mocking tone on this nomination page, and the requests for the people "defending" it to go away, to go to a wiki, or a blog. As I've said, I know nothing of this language, but it is a real language and other pages on Wikipedia show that it has been accepted here. The original editor has done a fine job, above, of defending the Journal as a reputable journal. He shows that it is not closely related to the book aside from being from the same field, the study of the Klingon language. I hope you are not a nose-counter, but a closer who takes time to study this discussion, the page itself, and the related pages. I see this page as a fine addition to the Star Trek collection on Wikipedia, and hopefully, as one of only 15 blue-linked Star Trek reference books, it will avoid the pattern of Star Trek red-uniforms and escape falling into a red-link again. Thanks. Randy Kryn 00:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop interpreting well-meaning advice about where to find a suitable place for such writing as being told to go away. Nobody has said that you as a person are not welcome here, but we are discussing whether this article should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My advice wasn't "mocking" or anything. Wikia is a pretty good place to keep this information. See memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Klingon_Way. It allows for a much lower threshold of RS which I think is necessary for a specialised fandom encyclopaedia. I'm a fan of Harry Potter myself and for detailed descriptions of characters, I generally consult the Harry Potter wikia and not Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lemongirl1942. Again, it seems that the Klingon language has been recognized here and elsewhere as a legitimate language. I am not a speaker or fan of the language, or have any interest in reading or writing about it on a wikia blog, but others may, and some others will look to Wikipedia for the information. Since you are a Harry Potter franchise fan (as are we all), this would be like removing Potter pages from Wikipedia because some editors feel they do not fit, that they are not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. My point, and a point ably discussed by the original editor, is that the Journal of the Klingon Language Institute is a legitimate and professional source, that it regards this book as canon, and as the main journal pertaining to a modern tribal-like constructed language its cites are adequate to keep The Klingon Way as an article here. Replace the word "Klingon" with "Esperanto" and this would be an easy Keep. Randy Kryn 11:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Klingon is WP:NOTINHERITED by this book. The single source is an issue. As for Esperanto and Harry Potter, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't powerful. These are all covered above (and on your talk Randy Kryn). Widefox; talk 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many Potter pages have been merged/redirected, which is exactly what I am suggesting here. Most Harry Potter pages have multiple reliable third party sources describing them. That's missing here. I would have accepted the journal but I don't see any indication that is a well known peer reviewed journal. And even if I accept that, it is still one review. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the best thing those who feel this article should be kept could do is provide at least one independent source that discusses the book in some detail. That would be a much more productive approach than arguing about it here. DonIago (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ keep We've got two mainstream sources that mention it and rather specialized sources that have reviewed it. The question is if the specialized sources are independent enough, and other than the nature of the narrow topic, they seem to be. Hobit (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Updated to a pure keep based on sources listed below. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions don't count for notability. A single advocacy source isn't in line with core principles. Widefox; talk 14:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They do count, just not for much. For WP:N, I'm relying on the reviews. But the reviews are coming from what is, in effect, a "walled garden" of a hyper-specialized area. I prefer to see at least some impact outside of that narrow area. And mentions like the ones we have are exactly that. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it counts? At WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK it says "two or more non-trivial", i.e. these trivial do not count. Explicitly. There's no walled garden, there's just no coverage. If we drop the bar for notability so low that an article requires just a single source from a non-RS journal from their own advocacy group, then that's WP:INDISCRIMINATE with no chance at NPOV etc. It's fundamentally WP:NOT. Widefox; talk 18:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are "trivial mentions". They only mention it once, but in both cases, they go out of their way to do so when providing background. Certainly not hugely in-depth, but relevant none-the-less. And which of the 4 prongs of INDISCRIMINATE does this even in theory violate? In all cases, we've met WP:V, we've got a case (like it or not) for WP:N. And yes, we often weigh sources by their quality. It's not unusual for something to be kept if we've got two strong sources. It's also not unusual to keep something that has one strong source and a lot of much weaker ones. This is common practice--it's not a bright line that once you're over it counts toward WP:N and if you aren't, it doesn't. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial/passing mention isn't what you think it is. There's consensus here they are trivial/passing mentions and as we go by consensus for common practice your second point seems moot. Per INDISCRIMINATE To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Widefox; talk 13:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft; two passing mentions in newspapers do not amount to the coverage in third-party sources required per WP:GNG. The fan institute and its writings do not seem sufficiently independent and reliable. Possibly also redirect and protect as suggested. Sandstein 12:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively to Klingon language#Sources. The sources mention it in passing but not in detail, and obviously the KLI is not an independent source here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or possibly a selective merge) to Klingon language#Sources. The author's article is a perfectly acceptable target, but maybe the Klingon article will give readers more info about the language, which is presumably what they're seeking. There's been a lot of discussion about the sources, but I'm just not seeing how they can establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and the fact that something exists is simply not good enough for an entry in a general-purpose encyclopedia. I'm unconvinced that the Klingon Language Institute can establish notability, as it's more-or-less Okrand's fan club. It's like how half of those Transformers articles are sourced to official fan club magazines. I'm sure the fan club magazines have lots of useful info, but they can't establish notability by themselves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I don't buy the independence arguments. Having said that why not, given that editor opinions differ ,merge instead to the author's article? It seems like a ton of virtual ink has been spilled when the middle ground--cover the book, but not with its own standalone article--is clearly preferred in deletion policy, WP:ATD-M.Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my previous merge opinion in view of the increasingly large constellation of reliable sources, and the increasingly shrill objections of the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not just independence, but also "self-interested parties" WP:NBOOK, single source, there's no WP:RSN, fails WP:BOOKCRIT 1. no, 2. no, 3. no, 4. no, 5. no. . The journal is hardly Nature, but indulging... our guideline....WP:SCHOLARSHIP says to check citation indexes. Not done. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. (emphasis own). A shred of evidence would help any argument trying to make the claim this is an RS. Anyone done that? Widefox; talk 18:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Klingon (or Klingon Language, for that matter) a point of view? You're not helping your cause out here by throwing around language that clearly doesn't apply. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BURDEN it's for those claiming the journal is a RS to reason it with that guideline when challenged, which has not been done yet. Don't think anyone disputes KLI's goal "Its goal is to promote the Klingon language and culture". Widefox; talk 10:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to lead editor's user space for continued revision and redirect to Okrand in the interim ... or just delete: ~~the cited sources seem to substantiate the book's content~~ Some cited sources are self-published wikis that fail to meet WP:RS. The Irish Times article does not mention this book at all, and likewise the cited academic journal is about a different Klingon text. The article does not even assert, absent substantiation, that the book is significant -- and, I doubt substantiation for such a claim (for a niche publication over 20 years old) exists. In other words, I believe the subject fails WP:GNG. Still, if someone's interested in working on the article without a looming AfD deadline, perhaps shift it to a willing participant's user space so interested folks can continue to scour for third-party commentary at their own pace and ping the wikiproject page for feedback before a possible re-introduction as an article. Such a rewrite would need to articulate why the book matters, and not just what's inside. But, considering it's a long shot, I don't think it's appropriate for this article to linger in article spaaaaaaaace, the final frontier. --EEMIV (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge In addition to the sources above, there is a brief mention of the book in the journal of Science Fiction Studies[8]. There are also 34 hits in GScholar, and skimming a number of those indicate that this book is a good or possibly canonical source for Klingon quotes. So the book is clearly of note by a specialized subset of academic community, but I have not found any in depth commentary on the book itself. Hence the book seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. But per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, preserving verifiable material is preferable to deletion. In this case, selective merge of basic facts about the book is supported by multiple brief reliable sources and total deletion would be against policy. I think Klingon language#Sources is the best target, but the author's article would be fine, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens also said to merge, so you're agreeing to that too? Widefox; talk 13:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now struck my merge opinion, see above. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Miyagawa who has access to a number of Star Trek sources and may be able to shed some light on this. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting to see a mention of this in Voyages of Imagination, which is the sourcebook for the fiction novels in the Star Trek universe - however, there wasn't even a mention of The Klingon Way at all. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: I've had a look through some databases, and here's what I came up with.
- A mention ("...including The Klingon Way (with recipes for Duani lizard skins and the complete lyrics to the Warrior's Anthem)...") in The Irish Times. A good source but not enough to establish notability.
- A review of the audiobook in the Calgary Herald. A good source and helps along the way to notability.
  McKenzie, Grant (January 25, 1997). "The accent's on audio". Calgary Herald. p. E15.
- A passing mention, with a general discussion about Okrand's work, in The Globe and Mail. A good source, but does not establish notability of the book.
- Similar in The Ottawa Citizen (with roughly the same article in The Toronto Star). Again; good source, but does not establish notability.
- A passing mention in Star Trek: A Post-structural Critique of the Original Series, but with a note that the book has been "embraced" by some. Possibly helpful for notability.
- Discussion on Motherboard, which seems to be from Vice Media, so a good indication of notability.
Keep, based on the sources above and in the article, especially HolQeD. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good finds, and thanks for adding the audiobook and its review into the page itself. As said before, this page has benefited by this nomination and discussion, yet maybe now is a good time to withdraw this nom. The preponderance of sources now seems to have met notability, and the tags on the page are all falling to the wayside. Randy Kryn 16:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, certainly don't withdraw my "delete" opinion. The sources offerred above are pure barrel-scraping, and don't amount to the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that we require for all subjects, including articles about topics related to Star Trek and constructed languages. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with IP editor - as passing mentions don't count for notability, several of them still don't count (n x 0 = 0). [9] is a passing mention too. Widefox; talk 23:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Widefox, did you read the new section on the audiobook and its review in the Calgary Herald? And that the audiobook was read by the actor who played Worf? That's notable in itself, let alone to have a major newspaper review the audiobook. It is my uninformed understanding that a main reason that pages are put on deletion review is that interested editors will then improve them. This has been done here, by several editors. As the nominator I hope that a reason you nominate pages here is that there would be saves. This does seem like a save. Randy Kryn 00:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my comment is based on these new sources. I can't verify the audiobook as I didn't find it on Google or using the info in the citation. The notability of the audiobook (not notable with ~~1 RS~~ four sentences) is NOTINHERITED from Worf or it's actor. If counting that for the book, that results in ~~1 RS~~ four sentences which is still short or GNG/NBOOK and we can't make an article about the book based on ~~1 RS~~ four sentences (and the audiobook would presumably be a related media with different code/ISBN, so is tangential and wouldn't help us build an article much). This isn't a vote and arguments based on policy/guideline have more weight. Widefox; talk 12:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

This motherboard/Vice media source is a trivial mention. I don't see any significant coverage of the book itself.
I am unable to find a link to the review of the audio book. Can anyone provide the link? A database link would be OK as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. We can't base an book article on 1 RS which is for an audiobook (irrespective of being able to verify it or not). Impossible to even write a WP:PERMASTUB as it fails GNG. Per WP:Indiscriminate (above), sure we can verify it exists, doesn't pass the most basic of notability, and not enough to write an article. This is unlikely to be WP:TOOSOON as it's years ago. Widefox; talk 13:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Widefox: Thankfully, there is no requirement that you, Widefox, are personally able to verify the existence of a review in order for that review to count as a reliable source. It can be checked by anyone with access to Nexis; unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be veering dangerously close to accusing me of making up the source. We now have a review of the audiobook in a broadsheet newspaper, a review of the book itself in a (weird but nonetheless scholarly) journal, and several mentions in journalistic and academic sources indicating that the book has some considerable significance for fans of Star Trek. In my judgement, that's enough. You don't have to agree with me, but it'd be nice if you tried to treat me as something other than a possibly-lying-but-clearly-deluded fool, which is definitely the impression I'm getting from you now. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And the whole "permastub" rhetoric is inappropriate, as well. There are plenty of sources which are worth citing but which nonetheless do not meet the bar for the purposes of the GNG. The Institute, the book itself and other work to which the author has contributed could all be cited. Additionally, we have the various sources third-party sources that have been listed which mention the book without being about it. I can't see the article ever being long, but it could certainly be more than a stub. Again- reasonable people can disagree, but let's not overstate our cases. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: I'm aware of that, which is why I added "irrespective of being able to verify it or not" meaning I don't personally need to see it to believe it's there. In your opinion the journal counts as an RS? I'm not sure where your tone is from, but it's clear my words have given you an impression I never intended. In that respect, if you reread now I've reiterated that you don't need to clarify about WP:V with me, you'll see that your comment fails WP:AGF straw-man. I do expect you to strike once you've realised this. As our guideline says such a journal is not an RS, I'm curious about your reply, and would help keep this about the sources. It only further illustrates how this needs protecting due to wild accusations. Widefox; talk 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it common practice to stub articles as we base on reliable secondaries? This is moot as we have only ~~1 RS~~ four sentences, but just clarifying common practice which I hardly call "rhetoric". I'm also not the only person claiming this doesn't meet GNG, or is not convinced of the sources, so I'm hardly an outlier here. Widefox; talk 22:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've made up your mind on this article, and that's fine, but your continued patronising, belittling tone is making me quite sure I have no interest in dealing with you. I have nothing further to say. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The review doesn't count per Lemongirl942 (below). (And, that does have nothing to do with me). In the face of that assessment, the lack of sources speak for themselves for those open enough to comment on the sources rather than on other editors. Good day to you, Widefox; talk 09:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Audio Book review I managed to hunt down the audio book review. It is part of a 610 word column which talks about. The entire coverage about the book is here (short enough to quote per fair use)

Well, since this column seems to be focusing on accents (Irish and British), how about a little Klingon? The Klingon Way is a warrior's guide to understanding such great Klingon proverbs as "Four Thousand throats my be cut in one night by a running man." Noted Klingon language and cultural expert Marc Okrand collects the wisdom of these great warriors and has two of TV's best-known Klingons (Lt. Worf from Star Trek: The Next Generation and B'Elanna Torres from Voyager) read the phrases in Klingon and explain their importance. If you've ever wanted to toss some conversational Klingon into a friendly chat, this audio will quickly have you up to speed and make you the hit of the next Trekker convention. Non-Trekkers, on the other hand, won't have a clue what they're listening to.

4 sentences is not significant coverage. Per WHYN and WP:PAGEDECIDE, I don't see a need for this to exist as a standalone article at this moment. The book hasn't received enough attention for that. My !vote for redirecting and selectively merging any content from the history stands. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% . Widefox; talk 09:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion, as requested on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. To parallel what 86.17.222.157 said, the only applicable content in the Irish Times piece is "and since then there have been a range of books, including The Klingon Way (with recipes for Duani lizard skins and the complete lyrics to the Warrior's Anthem)". There's not enough here to merit a standalone article and I'm disappointed the bar for inclusion has gotten so low. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Irish Times is only one source out of many now included on the page, and it's a good source as are most of the rest, WP:FANCRUFT does not apply here. The essay states "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world." (boldface added). There is a real world institute academically focused on this language, there was a real world journal published by that institute, and there are real world speakers of this language. The institute, journal, and speakers apparantly consider this book canon. Randy Kryn 21:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FANCRUFT "is often a succinct and frank description... it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism." which certainly is in play here. WP:NOTINHERITED applies, too. It doesn't matter if there's a real world institute about a debatably "real" language. That they consider this book canon doesn't make the book notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the judgement of those of us who support keeping the article has been "clouded by fanaticism"? Josh Milburn (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from the keep arguments I'm seeing. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussion in an academic journal, a review in the mainstream press, and multiple mentions in the press and academic works, some of which indicate that the book is important to/for certain groups and others of which discuss the book in the context of the author's wider work. In my judgement, that's enough to support keeping an article. I'm not sure where the fanaticism enters, and neither am I sure why this discussion continues to get personal. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I don't take The Journal of the Klingon Language Institute seriously. The mere mentions in newspapers are just that. I don't see general notability here. I'm not seeking to make the debate personal but I cannot understand the mental contortions being performed. GNG, based on this discussion, seems to be becoming a far lower bar than I think anyone ever intended. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The journal is indexed by the Modern Language Association and cited/mentioned as a scholarly source in plenty of academic works (for example, here and here). We can have a serious discussion about its reliability and/or independence from the subject, but to scathingly/sarcastically dismiss it because it is affiliated with the Klingon Language Institute hardly seems fair. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your two examples are poor ones to use: the first is a mere mention in the discussion of invented languages and the second only says "There is a journal for the study of the Klingon language (HolQed)". Neither makes the journal notable and the journal's mention of the book doesn't convince me of GNG. In such a niche field that has very little to cover I'd posit one discussing the other is neither notable nor relevant. When The New York Times reviews the book I'll reconsider. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that the journal was notable. All I said was that its existence as an academic journal is attested to in a number of reputable scholarly publications. You don't think that discussion of the book in this journal is of significance, I do. That's fine, we can disagree, but let's be clear about the issues at stake. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Merge - sorry, but after doing a bit of research, it's glaringly obvious that the article doesn't meet WP:N & WP:GNG, but as it could meet WP:NPOSSIBLE in the future, I agree that it should be merged with the author's page. I mean, the language obviously is notable, but that doesn't mean that the book (this article is about) is too. N. GASIETA|talk 21:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, amomg the most oft-repeated delete rationale is that this is some novelty. Nonetheless, it seems the article discusses the discusses a book that gives an outline for a prominent linguistic phenomenon and the sources did seem satisfactory to me. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the presses (always wanted to say that), I've come across a pretty good answer to editors who have questioned Klingon's status as a real language during this discussion (which I guess I mentally did as well, to tell the truth, but am getting to like the concept more as this delete discussion continues. It seems an interesting experiment in sound-to-symbol system evolution). Much of The Klingon Way's right to exist as a Wikipedia page seems to rest on the question that some have posed about the Klingon language, the Klingon Language Institute, and its academic journal, to paraphrase, "Is Wikipedia the right place to include articles about this made-up language, or should the acceptance and information about Klingon be left to fan-sites and blogs?". So, after this longwinded intro, and in defense of keeping our page on what apparently is one of this weird languages' canonical books, here is a sentence from our Klingon language article: "The 2003–2010 version of the puzzle globe logo of Wikipedia, representing its multilingualism, contained a Klingon character." Randy Kryn 2:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Of the 16 languages represented on Wikipedia's historic first silver-ball logo, the Klingon letter is the one here, on the top right. I guess it might represent something close to a 'W' in Klingon. Randy Kryn, 2:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

New source added, an editor has added a new source] to the page, From Elvish to Klingon: Exploring Invented Languages by Michael Adams published in 2011. Randy Kryn 13:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a great source and worth citing in the article, but it should be noted that Okrand is one of the authors of that chapter, so it isn't as helpful for notability as it may first seem. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, didn't know that. Yet it is at least another source, as it seems Michael Adams either edited or wrote the book, and had to both ask the author to add information to his book and also, hopefully, fact-check the author's work. The cites of the journal, to me, do establish notability, and combined with the rest should be enough to keep the article mainspaced. Especially with Wikipedia's use of the Klingon "letter" (sound? growl?) in the open-globe image from 2003 to 2010, one of only 16 languages chosen. If the main academic journal of this Wikipedia-honored language calls a book 'canon', that has got to count for something. Randy Kryn 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can anyone locate a copy of "Krankor, Captain (June 1996). "From the Grammarian's Desk". HolQeD. The Journal of the Klingon Language Institute. 5 (2 (18)): 2–6. ISSN 1061-2327." ? I cannot even confirm such an article exists outside this Wikipedia. It seems that it is not digitized at all :( PS. If you reply to me, please echo me back. Tnx. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted what I think is the publisher and they say it was an article but that republication rights in electronic media are less than clear and won't share it with me. It is apparently republished in [10]. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to think that with a little tightening up and a few more sources, this could be a just fine article. However, it seems to me that with all the discussion that's taken place on this page, that if such edits would improve the article duly, they would have been made. As such, I recommend merging the content into the Klingon language article. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I did intend to spend some time on the article, but I have been very busy and was put off by the way this discussion was going. I may try to put something together this weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chinwendu Ihezuo[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played at a level to meet notability guidelines for footballers. There is not enough coverage to pass GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has played in a major senior tournament. this page shows her UEFA Women's Champions League appearances history.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played in the Champions League; the highest level of club competition Spiderone 18:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any in-depth coverage by independent sources. Eldumpo (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fails NFOOTY (keep comments that she has played in the champions league are unhelpful as they are not aligned to any guidelines. However, the player passes wider GNG. Significant, non-routine coverage can be found in the following sources amongst others:

Ajegunle boys made me fall in love with football — Ihezuo - lengthy interview with the player from The Punch, a long-standing Nigerian daily newspaper
PELICAN STARS PROUD OF IHEZUO ACHIEVEMENT - medium length article on her nomination as CAF female footballer of the year
Chinwendu Ihezuo delighted to join Falconets - brief article with quotes on her call up to the Nigeria U20 team
CHINWENDU IHEZUO Makes History With Nigeria - brief report on her record-breaking goal scoring feat
OFFICIAL: DELTA QUEENS FORWARD CHINWENDU IHEZUO COMPLETES MOVE TO BIIK KAZYGURT - medium length article on her move to Kazakhstan
Ihezuo, Ayinde to receive FIFA honours - brief article discussing her award of the U17 WC silver boot

On top of the lengthy interview and handful of medium length articles, there is a reasonable amount of match reporting of her international performances which would help flesh out the article. To my mind, BASIC is satisfied here. Fenix down (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes the WP:GNG bar. Edited article to make notability more clear from sources. --LauraHale (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Laura.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fenix down, meets the GNG. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources to pass GNG and Footy. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Champion's league performance clearly meets basic criteria for sports notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. WP:GNG also clearly met. WP: NFOOTY rarely applies to the majority of women's footballers except for players who play for a senior national team or 3 active "fully professional" leagues (Netherlands, Sweden, U.S.) although there are numerous top-division leagues around the world. Hmlarson (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 North Superleague[edit]

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

~~Not notable season for regional youth team. Fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG.~~ Qed237 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I made a mistake thinking it was a youth competition, based on the word junior in the league name (thank you ChrisTheDude for the explanation). However I still have trouble seeing the notability for a season article for a regional competition. Qed237 (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adult semi-professional league which acts as a qualifier for the Scottish Cup. Not a youth competition. Sgt Elvan (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as noted, this is not a youth league (the word "junior" in the league's full name refers to its level within the Scottish league system and has nothing to do with the age of the players). Also WP:NSEASONS makes no mention of competition seasons, only team seasons. Nominator may wish to revisit/reword the reasons for nomination.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Sgt Elvan. --Froztbyte (talk) 10:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As it is a significant league and a feeder/qualifier for the National Cup. If consensus is that the individual seasons are not notable, redirect to Scottish Junior Football North Premier League rather than delete, as WP:NSEASONS says redirection is almost always preferable to deletion when the notability criteria are not satisfied. Smartyllama (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For the sake of completeness: None of the arguments provided on the talk page explain how WP:BIO or WP:GNG are met - the words "well reputed", "notable" and the like do not count per se. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atta ur Rehman Khan[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Overtly self promotional. The over numerous references are own web-sites and own publications and mentions as editor etc. for journals. I struggled through and could not find anything that conveyed notability. In my judgement, this fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 18:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 2014 PhD would have to be extremely exceptional to pass WP:PROF, and I don't see anything that indicates notability on any other count. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- promotional article. The references provided are not reliable enough. The subject is not worthy enough to warrant an entry on WP yet. and it look like the page is created by a close associate of the subject and who knows by subject himself. --Saqib (talk) 07:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - original report was properly transcluded but article author has twice deleted the entry from the list. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam and promotional. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody has come up with, and I can't find, any evidence that the subject might pass WP:PROF or the general notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Highland Football League[edit]

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

Previously PROD and deleted. Concern then was that it fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG, and I agree. Qed237 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This league receives plenty of coverage in regional media. It is the fifth tier, comparable to the conference in England. I would note a simple search on the main Press and Journal website shows videos and match reporting which can be used to provide detailed sourced prose along with the following articles on wider events in the season:

Lossiemouth forward Ryan Green praises partner Shawn Scott
Aberdeenshire Council plans to build new HQ on Highland League club’s ground
Clach granted licence for new members’ lounge
Highland League teams discover their fate in Scottish Cup draw
Sheran puts brave face on early work
Brora’s Gillespie hopes he can keep boss happy
VIDEO: As new Highland League season begins, John Grant looks back over 40 years of north football
Plans for new housing development at Cove Rangers site
Sandy Stables calls time on Keith chairmanship

Furthermore, I would not the following sources providing additional details

HFLHub - doesn't seem to be an official website (which is here and hosts interviews with managers an players which can be used to build out the season article.
Aberdeen Evening Express has plenty of articles such as this, this and this which provide sourced prose beyond mere match reporting that can be used in the article.
North Star News - similar to the Evening Express, general coverage of the season
Nairn County's Glenn Main: There's no big egos - we're in this together match report including interview with player on general club prospects

Not really sure how even at this early stage of the season that GNG is not satisfied, there is clear coverage across a wide range of regional newspapers that goes well beyond simple match reporting / results lists. Fenix down (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable competition that receives plenty of coverage in Scottish regional (and sometimes national) media. The winner of the competition can be promoted to the Scottish Professional Football League (main Scottish league structure) if they win playoffs against another regional league winner (Lowland League) and the last-placed team in Scottish League Two. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Jmorrison230582. --Froztbyte (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cameron[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in any WP:FPL) as well as WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, he does not satisfy the criteria in WP:NFOOTBALL, as his club only plays in a minor league and he did not play for a different club in his career. Regarding WP:GNG the only coverage of him is a passing mention of his name in local media articles about his club. Usually they are match reports with listings of everything what happens in this match including who did a corner or related statements. The rest are some mentions of him in very local non-RS ("Elgin City player welcomes New Year baby") without any substantial information. That is not enough per the notability guidelines and offers no in-depth coverage of his person at all. He therefore fails WP:GNG too and the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 21 October 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) 08:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archie MacPhee[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as a footballer that has not played in any WP:FPL, and the footballer also fails WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the other players of Elgin City he fails the criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL too, as the club only plays in a minor league. The same is for the other club he saw action with. He also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant and substantial coverage of him in RS. He only gets mentioned in passing in local news media in after match reports. Apart from that there is nothing on him which would satisfy our notability guidelines. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 21 October 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) 08:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Nicolson (footballer, born 1988)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NFOOTBALL as footballer has not played in WP:FPL and also fails WP:GNG. Qed237 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the other players of Elgin City he fails the criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL too, as the club only plays in a minor league. The same is for the other club he saw action with (as youth player). He also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant and substantial coverage of him in RS. He only gets mentioned in passing in local news media in after match reports as well similar listings and news about the club. Apart from that there is nothing on him which would satisfy our notability guidelines. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 21 October 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) 08:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Stewart[edit]

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

Footballer that fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in any WP:FPL and does not pass WP:GNG either. Qed237 (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the other players of Elgin City he fails the criteria of WP:NFOOTBALL too, as the club only plays in a minor league. The same is for the other club he saw action with before he went to Elgin City. He also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant and substantial coverage of him in RS. He only gets mentioned in passing in a few local news media in after-match-reports as well similar listings and news about the club. Apart from that there is nothing on him which would satisfy our notability guidelines. The article should therefore be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 21 October 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) 08:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Islam_Karimov#Tributes_and_funeral. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death and state funeral of Islam Karimov[edit]

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

Content fork of material already held at the subject's main article. There is little reason to have a separate article on this. Any information here that is not in the 'Illness and death' or 'Tributes and funeral' section of the Islam Kawrimov article can easily be added there and this article can be deleted. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is not needed, the Islam Karimov article can cover all of this - and already seems to. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 4 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, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget back to the relevant section in the main page as a plausible search term. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. The death and funeral of the father and 25-year ruler of a nation, a large one at that, is inherently an EVENT. I'd like more sources to be added to establish the subject's notability independent of the Islam Karimov's main article. My feeling is the lack of sources so far may reflect systemic bias rather than notability.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not lack of notability but rather that this is just a rehash of material that is already covered more extensively on the subject's main page. Content forking like this only serves to fragment information and make it harder for the reader to find. My suggestion would be to merge anything useful into the 'Illness and death' or 'Tributes and funeral' sections of the Islam Karimov article and delete (a redirect from this title isn't necessary IMO as it is an unlikely search term). If at a later date the section in question on Islam Karimov's article becomes excessively long, it can easily be split off. To be clear I am not saying it isn't notable, but that it is a content fork, and there is a much better place for this information where our readers are more likely to find it. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the fact that this was created in the first place makes it a plausible search term. It is also in line with the naming conventions for similar articles.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a reasonable argument. I'll support a redirect. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I tried to fix it, but is it worth it? Bearian (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Supranational 2016[edit]

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

Promo of a yet another nonnotable superpageant Staszek Lem (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMER, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:V. We have no idea yet if this will occur, much less be notable. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There are sources proving that it will occur, the World Beauty Organization is a very well-know organization in the pageant world. They also organize the Miss Supranational contest, which is part of the major beauty pageants in the world. I know it's your final decision that will keep or delete this article, but please consider the things mentioned above. --Marcetw (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither World Beauty Organization nor Miss Supranational are "very well-known". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage.--Richie Campbell (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- spam and / or fancruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as firm consensus has always shown secondary schools to be notable and acceptable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh Baptist School[edit]

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

I am aware that schools are inherently notable but the way the article is written is 100% promotional and attempts to use Wikipedia to both promote the school and serve as a website about the school. Full of WP:PEACOCK language. For example, the code of conduct at the school is NOT encyclopedic material. For the article to be up to standard it would have to be 100% re-written. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What in the opening paragraph would have to be rewritten? If the content following that is promotional then just remove it from the article, but that would still leave a perfectly valid neutrally written stub. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: IMO, this school meets WP:GNG. I've removed unsourced contents, re-wrote few lines and added two refs (there are many available though).

@Zackmann08: Hi, please take a look at the article and if your concerns has been addressed, you can withdraw and close this afd. Or you can further explain your deletion rationale. Thank you. Anup [Talk] 11:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issues brought up by the nom have been fixed by some editors. Also, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meerang Mahum[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged by Marchjuly in January 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:this topic (Manipuri language films) in general has negligible coverage in mainstream English media. Search in local language may be helpful. Pratyush (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it appears to be failing WP:NF. Anup [Talk] 21:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wari Loidri[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged by Marchjuly in January 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:this topic (Manipuri language films) in general has negligible coverage in mainstream English media. Search in local language may be helpful. Pratyush (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is an "upcoming film" with no reliable sources; don't know if principle photography is yet to start or it is in post-production stage, or the film has already been released. It simply fails WP:NF. Anup [Talk] 21:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mounao Thoibi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged by Marchjuly in January 2016. Facebook is not a reliable source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 16:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:this topic (Manipuri language films) in general has negligible coverage in mainstream English media. Search in local language may be helpful. Pratyush (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seemingly fails WP:NF. Anup [Talk] 22:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yansong Pang[edit]

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

Temporary leader of business students' networking group, per WP:TOOSOON. The group seems notable, but notability is not inherited, and I can't find any mention of him online apart from the "our leaders" page on the group's website. Evident conflict of interest by creator. Proposed deletion on grounds of notability contested by creator without comment. Wikishovel (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence anywhere of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent sources are cited in the article at all, and searches have produced only sources which are not independent, not reliable sources, not substantial coverage, or a combination of two or all three of those. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non notable individual. Not an encyclopedia article but a vanity page created by a WP:SPA with probable WP:COI. Citobun (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiara Passa[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

CSD tag removed. Article is an autobiography, contrary to our policies on the use of Wikipedia for promotion. Subject does not meet notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Delete self-promotional and not notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note page has previously been deleted. Was subsequently recreated with the exact same material. Why Chrislk02 felt it didn't qualify for WP:CSD is questionable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The page in question is not an article, but a resume or list of accomplishments written by the named person, who doesn't understand why it is problematic for someone to write their own article, especially in a promotional nature. I also don't understand why Chrislk02 removed the tag. 331dot (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE First of all, WP:AUTO is not a policy, it is a content guideline, which, as it says "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". The article was written better than many other articles written by external authors, and in terms of self promotion, it is no where near as blatant as many other articles. Additionally, the artists resume indicated that there was likely notability, being an internationally exhibited artist. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- additional note I was unaware of a previous deletion. I agree, it was written in a self promotional manner, but looking at the references, I felt it at least merited a discussion (I tend to err on the side of caution in these situations). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is possible to successfully write an autobiography on Wikipedia, but I don't think this is an example of that. I do thank you for and appreciate your reply. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zackmann08 have you read carefully the references? I was using the artist template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_artist as many other artist i cited in my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiara_Passa If you see also this example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Arcangel you'll see an autobiographical page, reporting even personal stuff, that i've avoided talking only on MEDIA ART!

NOTE 2 keep

Chrislk02 On the previous delation... well, 3 days ago i just started to write the page - few lines - and someone delete the page while i was writing... I was not having the time to adjust online, etc. This is why i decided to edit the 'artist template' to fill offline, then paste into wiki and adjust there links, references, stuff etc. Please have a look at my talk page where i report article of some other media artist like me. There are example much more 'autobiographical' than mine. Like Chrislk02 says WP:AUTO is not a policy, it is a content guideline that i try to respect and report on the page i was writing.Chiarapassa (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Best, Chiara[reply]

Each page is judged on its own merits; the fact that others in your line of work have pages is irrelevant. This has not been suggested for deletion solely because it is autobiographical(problematic as that is; it would have been better to draft it for review at WP:AFC first), it has been suggested because it is promotional and does not clearly indicate how you are notable. It is correct that autobiographies are not prohibited, but they are discouraged, and with good reason. 331dot (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence that other pages of those in your line of work are autobiographical, feel free to bring that up on those pages- though, in my opinion at least, that's not the primary issue here. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot So, to be honest you'd judge also the following pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marisa_Olson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olia_Lialina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mandiberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_and_Franco_Mattes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Maltagliati https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Packer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Monico and many others...that i wont cite here, I wont raise a polemic, is not my intention. But you'd know, I was inspired by their pages following the artist template and paying attention to the WP:AUTO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiarapassa (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Chiarapassa (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just giving my opinion on the page in front of me, and not every page about others in your line of work. As this indicates that is a poor argument to keep a page; we are just talking about the merits of this page. I might be persuaded to change my mind if it was made much less promotional than it is now. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so, 331dot what do you mean as self-promotional? Can you please help me to change parts of the text you see promotional? Because i haven't alluded to any promotion of 'me', just talked of some artworks (most salient) i made during 19 years (almost 20) of working interantionally in media art. Have you seen the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiarapassa (talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC) Chiarapassa (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that my time at this moment to discuss this is limited- but simply listing your work and accomplishments without prose about its context and how you are notable is nothing but a resume or personal webpage for you to discuss yourself, which is not what Wikipedia is about. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i understood that is a deontological matter and a contradiction too! So, i have to do like others colleagues i've cited. Some of them asked to others to write their pages but others write themselves the pages...Chiarapassa (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep keep she is really a pioneer in media art. And she was contributing with talks, lectures, student workshops, exhibiting more worldwide than in Italy especially in electronic art festivals and institutions. The problem here is not that the article is autobiographical - it is very well written, more than many similar other I saw - but the issue here is that she was the own writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.164.134.77 (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC) — 94.164.134.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: Striking comment by WP:SPA with zero other edits. Definite WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have added women artists project to article talkpage so project participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
chiara passa is a significant artist in the digital art field and is worthy of a wikipedia entry. in particular i know her as the curator of "the widget art gallery", which has been an ongoing project for some years, well before there was anything else like this around. passa has pioneered this format, and through this project continues to support and promote many other digital artists, and deliver accessible digital art to audiences all over the world. she has made a significant contribution to the field of digital art with this project, even without considering her other work. would a solution be to have the page re-written or edited by someone else? Frock (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to rewrite the page, feel free. Autobiographies are permissible, if highly discouraged, so that's not the primary issue; the issue is that the article reads as a resume or list of accomplishments by this person. If you can rewrite it in an more encyclopedic tone, I would be interested in seeing the result. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE If you want me to move this to the user space/draft space for work, just let me know. On the surface, while there are many problems with the article, I suspect if remedied would pass notability requirements. Just shoot me an email or leave me a note on my talk page. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 02:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep for sure! I am a time based art curator, I'd like to take part to the discussion even if i don't have a wikipedia account, and preferring to remain anonymous.

She is an international multi media artist working since the beginnings, well notable in the field of new media art and in truth, she is also an educator teaching since 1997 at university media art aesthetics.

I was reading on the contradiction on 'autobiographical' and the article she wrote on herself that is an autobiography but sincerely, it appear as an art autobiography must be, being not self-promotional as someone argue. She has done much more than you can see here and she wasn't reported in the wiki article, of course. I guess she try to write the main steps of her artistic research as simple as possible. She also was called from ZKM (media art museum) to take part to the international jury for "App Art Award" http://on1.zkm.de/zkm/stories/storyReader$8923 (a team of experts in art and app-artworks, so rare!) because she is one of the first artist in making art-applications for mobiles, since AppStore exists. https://the3inchcanvas.wordpress.com/2011/05/09/art-application-create-a-sculpture-on-your-phone/

In the early 95 artists starting in computer art were really fascinated by the computer as medium to make art because was a new way to interprets art. In this field she was one of first starting working, specially in Europe where computer art has remained for long time a sort of sub-cultural art practise, borderline to the art system.

Reading WP:AUTO I guess Passa's page and comparing Passa's article - i was wondering if also wiki reviewers have compared too - with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorna_Mills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mandiberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_and_Franco_Mattes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marisa_Olson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olia_Lialina I noticed that often, all the cited artists have the same references because they took part at the same exhibitions of media art etc worldwide. So, which is the difference between the biography of chiara pssa and the others artists' biographies cited here ?

~~Just a numerical matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.190.114 (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC) — 84.253.190.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

I'm wondering if the above post is much like the other IP post above that was struck. Very similar in style and language to the person whose article we are discussing. 331dot (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Striking comment by WP:SPA with zero other edits. Definite WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT.--Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I'm here because of a polite private email asking me to help save the article (which on the English Wikipedia is called WP:CANVASSING). Unfortunately the article is mostly sourced to 'stuff on the internet', rather than magazine/news/book reviews or other reliable independent sources. I've searched online and found this long interview, which shows Chiara Passa is beginning to get noticed, but nowhere near enough to pass the English Wikipedia WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE yet. Maybe there are news articles in Italian that we don't know about, but until reliable sources can be found, the article should not be re-created. Sionk (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Yes, i was writing to Sionk because i thought to involve someone else with an art background, even if now I've understood in not specifically media art. I din’t knew that this action is prohibited in wikipedia. I am sorry Sionk but I disagree with what you say. In fact, If you have seen my references you found many pdf regarding offline interational magazines as LEA Leonardo Electronic Almanac, isuuu etc. and many other publications with proceedings (see my bibliography and the conferences http://www.chiarapassa.it/Artisticprofile.html scrolling down the page). You can't search on google only Chiara Passa... for exmple https://rhizome.org/editorial/2012/oct/29/gallery-your-pocket/ this is also a magazine. See the references, Venice biennale book isbn, quadriennale catalogue http://www.quadriennalediroma.org/arbiq_web/index.php?sezione=quadriennali&id=33&ricerca= and many many other...

Moreover, You say that 'the article is mostly sourced to 'stuff on the internet', well i am a media artist and i thought to link more ONLINE STUFF! Chiarapassa (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For any admins, the only keep votes up to this point are the page creator and their WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT. User has been engaged in widespread WP:CANVASSING to make sure the page is kept. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for Zackmann08 now i've understood what is WP:CANVASSING but wasen't widespread, 'cause i've contacted only 5 users that i choose because seemed to me have been written on art, in fact i took their email from the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_artists#Members page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiarapassa (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC) Chiarapassa (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still canvassing, which is a problem because you are asking people to come here to save the article(according to one person you emailed). It's one thing to ask people at the WikiProject to visit this page to offer their opinion, but it is different to ask them to give a certain opinion. Please stop canvassing and allow the discussion to take place on its own merits. 331dot (talk) 02:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to 331dot Sorry but not true... i am still not canvassing! As you can see - and you can - i was contacting only 5 users that seemed to me near to the field of art to ask them to join the page and leave their opinion. Then, i haven't contacted anyone else to ask opinion- as you can see.Chiarapassa (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for two reasons. (1) Notability. I have looked at the references, and they do not come near to indicating notability in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines. It is in the nature of artists that they seek publicity, as the whole point is to get their art seen and bought. Therefore, artists tend to have coverage in webs sites and other organisations that exist for the purpose of publicising art and artists. Likewise, an artist will be covered on the webs sites of galleries where they have exhibited, on the webs sites of artists' organisations, and of other organisations which have an involvement with the artist in question and their work. That gives widespread coverage, but not coverage in independent sources, and since any artist who wishes to be successful is likely to put work into obtaining such coverage, it is no evidence of notability. In this article, many of the references are of precisely that kind. Also, some of the references barely mention Chiara Passa (such as just including her name in a long list of names) or even don't mention her at all. Then there's a wordpress page announcing an iPhone app that Chiara Passa has "released" (whatever that means), and that is neither an independent source nor a reliable one. Nowhere is there the sort of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources that is required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (2) Promotion. There is no way of seeing this as a neutral article. From start to finish it is clearly written to impress us with how significant, innovative, and creative Chiara Passa is. I agree with Chrislk02 that the article is not blatantly promotional enough for speedy deletion, but it still far too promotional to be an acceptable Wikipedia article, and that can be added to the lack of evidence of notability.

It is clear that this is an attempt by Chiara Passa to use Wikipedia to get publicity for her work. I do not in any way blame her for doing so, as anyone without experience of editing Wikipedia is unlikely to have any reason for thinking that posting about oneself to publicise one's work is not acceptable, and as I have already said, artists need to seek publicity if they are to survive. However, I'm afraid that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Chiara, I wish you every success in getting publicity for your work, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

NOTE Hi JamesBWatson how do you came here? wondering if someone has asked you to come here… Anyway, thank you for your comment, bust in my opinion, you haven’t analyzed very well and wide-range the situation. If you’ve really seen my references you noticed that are the same of the artists’ articles i’ve cited above in this discussion, because we took part at the same exhibitions and media art stuff. And the way i wrote the art-article is the same of many others cited art-articles written by anonymous or pseudo-external authors I was inspired; but all of you (except Chrislk02 that understood) continue ignoring this point.

If you suggest to delete the article i can’t do nothing to change your point of view, I know that. I am discovering helped by my sister (a lawyer) that Wikipedia with all its laws it is not so ‘democratic’ and highly discourages people writing articles in restricted fields, like for ex. in mine which is media art.Chiarapassa (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have drafted answers to those comments, but since they are not about reasons why this article should be deleted or kept, I shall post them at User talk:Chiarapassa rather than here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE 2 for JamesBWatson, just to let you know that i don't work with any commercial gallery. Furtherfield gallery is a no-profit art-space since 1996, since net-art exists, and if you've seen the references, i attend media art conferences, festivals, institutions and museums but not commercial you've to know taht net art is difficult to sell but is it a grat part of contemporary art. Chiarapassa (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that. However, whether it is commercial or not makes no difference: the point is that a web site, conference, festival, or institution that you or your work is associated with is not an independent source, and as far as Wikipedia's notability guidelines are concerned, it is not evidence of notability, whether it is commercial or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ADD. NOTE for JamesBWatson thank you for the explanation you gave me in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chiarapassa talkpage I am sorry to say you that you continue ignoring the point. "poor argument to keep a page" in relation to my article is not true, no more than other i've cited. In fact, My colleagues have been put less references than me.Chiarapassa (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can say that I "continue ignoring" the point. I explained to you that I agree with you that your article is probably no more worthy of deletion than some (or perhaps even all) of those articles, but that the fault may be not the deletion nomination for your article but the lack of deletion nominations for the others. You may agree or disagree with me, but I am at a complete loss to see how you can think that saying that is "ignoring" the issue.
The number of references is of little relevance. I have seen articles with fifty or more useless references, and articles with two good references: an article with two good references is better referenced than one with five hundred poor references. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i've two pseudonym.. but maybe you’ve seen the references too much superficially and you haven’t noticed that are almost the same of my colleagues - as i told you - since years we took part at the same digital art shows. Ehy mathematician JamesBWatson discussion here is like two lines that never meet... obviously it's up to you! Chiarapassa (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read what I wrote? Saying that the references are "almost the same of my colleagues" confirms what I said: it does not contradict it. I agree with you that those other articles are not better sourced than yours. That is my last attempt to make this clear: if you still can't hear what I'm saying when I say it that loud then I will probably never be able to get my point across to you. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry again but i do not agree! Really Seen my selected shows? all are with references and Are the most important media-art shows worldwide. FIELD OF MEDIA ART Chiarapassa (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Instead of continually repeating "i'm really important/well known/notable in the field of new media art", you need to prove it. Wikipedia relies on proof. I am open to being convinced to change my 'vote', but I'm struggling to do so. Did any of your work/solo shows get reviews in art magazines or newspapers, for example? Have you won any awards? I can see you've exhibited internationally, in London and New York (as well as Italy) which in my view puts you above many artists (but then not everyone who works internationally is notable either). Proof will help settle the discussion.

I can see your 'Widget Gallery' has been profiled, for example by El Pais, which is at least a reliable independent news source. Sionk (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Sionk thanks, i really din't knew that i can link as reference non english articles. Do you want me i change the references, if yes which? Chiarapassa (talk) 16:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - News articles in other languages are fine (though English language ones are preferred). News/magazine articles that are not available online are fine too (though we will need the full details of these - publication/author/date/page(s) etc.) Sionk (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And this last one http://www.newartfoundation.org/#!ata-artists-training-2015/c1atu

2015 - Honorable mention at the XIV Festival Internacional de la Imagen, Manizales. 2012 - "eContent Award Italy" second prize for "Talking in strings" in the category: eInclusion and Participation. Palazzo Turati, Milano. 2011 - e-Content Award Italy, second prize in the category “e-Entertainment and Games” (WAG-Widget Art Gallery, IPhone/IPad App). Sala Quaroni, Eur Roma. 2011 - Prize SOS-ARTE, to the artistic activity developed during the year 2010. 2010 - e-Content Award Italy, second prize in the category: “Create your culture!” ("Augmented Irreality", interactive video installation '10). Sala Quaroni, Eur Roma. 2008 - e-Content Award Italy, prize for the best digital web content (ideasoanir.net). BBF-Expo Comm. Nuova Fiera di Roma. 2008 – Prize: Imprendilarte, Bic Lazio, Modigliani Institute, Roma. 2008 – Prize: MOVIN' UP 2008 'Mobilità nel mondo per giovani artisti italiani. 2006 – Prize for the project: ideasonair.net, at “Museum and the web- category: Innovative”. 2005 – Seat-Pagine BIanche d’Autore. Second prize. Curated by Luca Beatrice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiarapassa (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sionk How can i pass the non online material? Do you want me i make some pdf? I've a lot Repubblica, Sole 24 ore, El Pais again, Books, contribution with proceeding isbn etc... Would you please help me to make a selection seeing my biography? http://www.chiarapassa.it/Artisticprofile.html (scroll down the page) Or just tell me how much article do you need i edit? Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiarapassa (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)  Chiarapassa (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm making a list of articals book and publications... it takes timeChiarapassa (talk) 17:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List condensed for brevity.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

REFERENCES

Hi Sionk are only few between books, proceeding, catalogues, interviews, etc. My archive is a mess of 19 years of exhibitions, conferences, lectures, etc. i’ve also 4 tv interviews but recorded. I noticed that few media art festival don’t exist anymore, is the case of VIPER Basel Media art festival that held until 2005 but i’ve the paper catalogue, of course. Sionk thanks, because you gave me the idea to fix my archive updating and scanning old catalogues, books etc; i've never digitized it at all. nowadays magazine are only online and books too, is more easy, this why i thought to put here more online ref. than offline... my fault.

Esporre l'arte nel telefonino. By Elena Giulia Rossi. Il Sole24ore Newspaper, domenica 20 Luglio 2014.

La Repubblica, 10 dicembre 1998 ; "Intervista sui creativi viventi, non sui defunti" by Antonella Piperno.

1999 Flash Art n. 219 "Lazio: l'immagine contaminata" Curated by Patrizia Ferri.

1999 Flash Art n. 218 "La giovane pittura d' immagine italiana/dizionario parte prima"

2002 “Arte e Critica” n. 30/31 aprile-settembre ‘Chiara Passa solo show Placentia Arte

2000- "RAI sat Art international" Interview about Video Art. Curated by Gabriele Simongini.

2002 “Rai arte” ‘The current position of italian net art at Java Museum.

2002 “Arte e critica” n. 32 ottobre/dicembre; ‘Verso l’astrazione-mobilità di linguaggi’ Curated by Daniela Lotta.

2003 - 2003 – “Dictionary of the young italian art 1” Giancarlo Politi Editions.

2003 –Multimedia Art - Interview on “talk radio” curated by Francesca Bonfanti.

2003 “Flash Art” n.239 april/may Group Show “ L’oading” Museum Montevergini, Siracusa.

2004 May, “Exibart-onpaper”, News: “L’artista Chiara Passa inaugura una nuova galleria a Broadway” http://www.exibart.com/notizia.asp?IDNotizia=9848

Catalogue. Cosmos Biennale http://www.bjcem.org/biennali/xi-biennial-of-young-artists-from-europe-and-the-mediterranean-athens-2003/ http://www.bjcem.org/download/ko%CF%83%CE%BCo%CF%82-mia-%CE%B8a%CE%BBa%CF%83%CF%83a-texnh-cosmos-a-sea-of-art-biennial-catalogue/

https://www.amazon.it/Oreste-alla-Biennale-Oreste-Venice-Biennale/dp/8881582791

“XIV Quadriennale”- Napoli 2003. Catalogue De Luca Editions http://www.quadriennalediroma.org/arbiq_web/index.php?sezione=quadriennali&id=33&ricerca=

CyberArts -Prix Aers Electronica 2003. Catalogue Hatje Cantz editions.

http://www.flong.com/blog/2011/culture-and-new-media-5-questions-by-lev-manovich/

http://www.leoalmanac.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/LEAVol19No2-Passa.pdf

http://www.chiarapassa.it/wagrepubblica.pdf

http://rhizome.org/editorial/2012/oct/29/gallery-your-pocket/

http://nodem.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NODEM-2014-Book-of-Abstracts.pdf

http://www.arshake.com/en/un-fiber-artist-nella-widget-art-gallery/

http://behindthegif.altervista.org/chiara-passa/

http://www.chiarapassa.it/postmatter-chiara-passa.pdf

http://www.arshake.com/en/chiara-passa-dimensioning-live-architecture/

http://www.arshake.com/en/special-project-02-chiara-passa/

http://www.arshake.com/en/widget-art-gallery-una-galleria-tra-mondi/

http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2013/11/02/actualidad/1383423421_000347.html

http://www.artribune.com/2013/09/gallerie-darte-online-intervista-con-chiara-passa/

http://www.furtherfield.org/features/reviews/symbol-bill-miller-widget-art-gallery

http://archive.turbulence.org/networked_music_review/2013/08/20/the-widget-art-gallery-for-iphone-ipod-ipad/

book 2013 – ‘Ubiquità. Arte e critica d'arte nell'epoca del policentrismo planetario’. Antonello Tolve, edizioni Quodlibet.http://www.quodlibet.it/libro/9788874625048

2014 - EVA: Electronic visualization technologies and the arts conference. BCS book ISBN 978-1-78017-285-9.

book 2012 - From Browser to Gallery (and Back): The Commodification of Net Art 1990-2011 by Jennifer Chan. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1441203/Pool_Jennifer_Chan_TheCommodificationofNetArt.pdf

2009 – “YOUNG BLOOD” Dictionary of italian’s creativity, Ed. Iron Productions.

2009 - SUONI E IMMAGINI NELLO SPAZIO. Digicult-Digimag interview by Silvia Scaravaggi. http://www.digicult.it/digimag/article.asp?id=1326

2009 December - Interview by Casaluce-Geiger on “Mymedia-Osservatorio di cultura digitale”,

2008 - Catalogue of "Netspace: viaggio nell'arte della rete". MAXXI_Museo Roma http://www.beap.beniculturali.it/opencms/opencms/BASAE/sito-BASAE/contenuti/aree/Eventi/Architettura-e-arte-contemporanee/visualizza_asset.html?id=5075&pagename=783

2007 june Metamute Magazine - CULTURE AND POLITICS AFTER THE NET: “Time Bomb The Love”

https://issuu.com/me21collective/docs/the_dark_precursor_-_dare_2015

2011 - FILE | Electronic Language International Festival, São Paulo, with "The Virtual Prigione" https://www.scribd.com/doc/72791756/FILE-2011-Catalog

ISEA Publications with proceedings: http://isea2015.org/publications/proceedings-of-the-21st-international-symposium-on-electronic-art/

2015 - The Dark Precursor: International Conference on Deleuze and Artistic Research (DARE 2015) Book ISBN 9789490389048 LINK https://issuu.com/me21collective/docs/the_dark_precursor_-_dare_2015 The Dark

2015 - Digitalia Festival ctalogue ISBN 978-83-64629-26-6

2015 - ISEA ART CATALOGUE: http://isea2015.org/publications/art-catalogue/

2015 - EVA: Electronic visualization technologies and the arts conference. BCS book ISBN 978–1–78017–316-0.

2015 – Athens Digital Art Festival catalogue. Multitrab Productions ISBN 978-618-82103-0-1. Online catalogue

2014 – ENgagiNg SpacES - Interpretation, Design and Digital Strategies. Nodem ed. ISBN 978-83-941350-0-3. PDF here.

http://neural.it/2003/01/loading-genetically-modified-videogames/

2005 - Catalogue of 18es. INSTANTS VIDÉO - Various locations, Marseille and Hérouville St-Clair (Centre d’Art Contemporain). http://www.instantsvideo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/instantsvideo2005.pdf

2005 Catalogue and DVD of “Game Paused - a creative celebration of the video game", London. Chiarapassa (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some Further reading at the page. Chiarapassa (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only one serious "keep", by YSSYguy, and that's not enough. Sandstein 18:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serene Air[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This is an airline that is not yet certified to fly, much less has any scheduled flights. It may well be notable in the future, but for now what it has is announced intents and a plane order. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reason this is notable yet. After the airline starts operating, then I think there might be (some) reason for an article, but not yet. Furthermore, the official website says "Coming Soon." Thegreatgrabber (talk) ^contribs 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have created this page so it may be a bit biased but my argument is that the airline will start flying by 1st November 2016 which is less than a month away. It is better to keep the page than to delete it and remake it after 15 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiraz.s10 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Shiraz.s10 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Keep Why not keep the page.. The Air line fleet is already seen and in a few days will start its operations. I dont also see any reason that this page should be deleted, rather the page should have all the required things on it. like the logo of the company, first 737-800 plane which is parked at Ranton atm and may be pictures of the officials and staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.50.34.178 (talk)

— 2.50.34.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep -- Civil Aviation Authority has already granted Serene Air a licence so this a carrier soon commencing its operation. I've added references to the page so I hope now the airline merits an entry. --Saqib (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being in business does not automatically make a company, even an airline, notable. This was a page created by the airline (note how while just one editor had worked on it, the article was referring to the airline as "us" to promote a business that they are not actually in yet, much less notable for. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the page was created by the staff of the airline but if it is, then need to be re-written and keep a close eye so that no promotional material be added here. I guess the creator copied the text referring to "us" from airlines official FB page. And no just plane orders, the airlines has already acquired three aircrafts according to a news report and we can see the evidence in the form of images. --Saqib (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin assistance needed The user who voted as User:Junaid Faisal was in fact an IP user. It also has an incorrect timestamp. Nordic Nightfury 12:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTALBALLING, there's no proof that this company is or will be notable. Just because a business exists doesn't mean we automatically make and keep an article about it. Valeince (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or otherwise hold for four days to see if it really dies fly. I feel like we are being Rickrolled. If not, Delete. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are articles of reasonable length about the airline on the websites of several of Pakistan's leading media companies and this airline appears to be a fairly big deal in the context of that country and its air travel industry. YSSYguy (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for or at least Draft because, although it's expected this may in fact become an established airline, we cannot guarantee it as a fact therefore delete until there's the actual substance needed. SwisterTwister talk 23:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The significant coverage already exists, with analysis as well as straight reportage. Given the small size of the Pakistani airline industry, even if the airline fails there will likely be significant coverage as a result. YSSYguy (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Im sorry but 4 sources doesn't say "significant coverage" to me, there is no objection for re-creation when more info comes to light. My deletion is per WP:GNG, and WP:CRYSTAL on how this will be notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 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 and redirect to Def Con Dos. Black Kite (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Segundo Asalto[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an unnotable album. It is unsourced due to the simple fact there is no significant coverage to be found on it. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and redirect to Def Con Dos because it is a non-notable album. Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Bainuk people. Redirects for common misspellings are OK. Black Kite (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bianunka people[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, suspected hoax. Google Books search returns zero hits, ditto for "bianunka" Google Scholar. The main Google Search returns only Wikipedia mirrors. IgnorantArmies (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this is probably a misspelling of an alternative name for the Bainuk people rather than a deliberate hoax. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and edit conflict with an IP editor making the same observation). As noted, zero presence in any reliable sources for either the ethnic group or the language. Honestly, my best guess is that this isn't a hoax in the intentional sense, but a misspelling of Bainuk people that took on a life of its own. Nevertheless, I don't support a redirect, as no reliable sources use this spelling. It should be removed from the appropriate template upon deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bainuk people. I think it is a misspelling of Bainunka, which is used as a variant of Bainuk in at least one source: Mark, Peter, and José da Silva Horta. The Forgotten Diaspora: Jewish Communities in West Africa and the Making of the Atlantic World. Cambridge University Press, 2013, p54 - https://books.google.com/books?id=Jq_BLoQLq00C&pg=PA54&dq="bainunka". Note, this is just a google books search, I don't have the entire book, and the discussion of Bainunka I saw has little to do with Judaism, I think. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is OK with common misspellings. Bearian (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence D. “Larry” Richards[edit]

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

Basically a CV. Biographical details largely unreferenced while other references are mainly primary sources or completely unrelated to the article subject. Lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia notability criteria. The article creator, User:Mecorbin08, is a single-purpose account with probable conflict of interest. Citobun (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NOTRESUME. In theory, an argument could be made for passing WP:PROF, but this breezy resume and cover letter are a hot mess, as my students used to say. University administrators, by the way, don't automatically pass the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Perhaps known more for his 32-year career in higher education administration..." is characteristic of the non-claims to notability in this article, which is full of OR and is basically a CV created by a SPA acct (with a bevy of supporting redirects). The few papers I can definitively link to him on GS are low double-digit citations. Agricola44 (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Low GS cites. Incompetently written article full of bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable business professor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eiji Maruyama[edit]

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

Relevant sources are nil using Google search. Subject's career consists of only small time villains in Tokusatsu, and bit parts in anime voice roles. No news coverage found, either. I do not believe the subject is notable enough to say the least. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than Wiseman, there's not much to say about his anime roles. However, Tokusatsu wikiproject might find this actor notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He voices a bunch of characters in the tokusatsus. This leads me to believe he is called upon as a utility role in the series, doing villains of the week, so that's a significant role. This should be reviewed against the other stars. How many utility roles are there in the series. If he's among 20 "additional voices" then it's not that important, but if it's among 2-3 people who always appear, then his significance increases. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any honorable mentions regarding the subject? If not, the subject is not that notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by honorable mentions? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has the subject won any awards/prizes for his work? Is there any news coverage regarding the subject? I won't see the subject as notable unless I see them. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that reliable sources are close to nonexistent, as stated in the nom. Perhaps fails GNG too, although I'm not really sure on that one. However, such severe source issues by itself are grounds for deletion. MPD (Talk to me!) 12:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Words[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG, with little to no coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 4 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) 17:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM and hasn't charted in any country. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One !voter hasn't explained why it should be deleted, I don't expect walls of text however I do expect a valid reason which I'm not seeing here (It's essentially a "WP:PERNOM case) so I'm closing as No Consensus wit No objections to renomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Del Oro District[edit]

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

Notability-Scouting WikiProject does not support articles for any entity smaller than council level. There is nothing of value to merge into the council article-basically a list of names that will change yearly. Surprised this has flown under the radar for 22 months. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 3 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) 17:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starvision Plus[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and also reads like an advertisement. If you cut all the advertising fluff and social media links (self-published sourcing) nothing remains to firmly establish notability. ronaz ^Talk! 09:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ronaz: I will attempt to trim the promotional fluff. Meatsgains (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heath Miller (concert producer)[edit]

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

Some tiny mentions in mainly obscure publications. Could not establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Also concerned that an WP:SPA removed notability tag and another SPA has edited; username of SPA creator Excessdb, is same as the name of Miller's company - was originally put in to AfC by anon IP. Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Run-of-the-mill WP:ARTSPAM by conflict of interest editor. Subject lacks in-depth coverage in a breadth of reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Citobun (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many mentions as well as quoted in publications such as Billboard magazine - hardly an obscure publication. A little digging while searching for "Heath Miller" AND "Webster Hall" reveals a bit more that is otherwise buried by the football player Noparking9 (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noparking9 is one of the WP:SPAs mentioned. Noparking, have you any connection with the other editors of the article? Are you connected to Miller? Billboard is about the only non-obscure publication cited, but it is only one and not an article on Miller. It just quotes his opinion, among others, on the closing of a trainline. Boleyn (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Boelin No connection, but I do listen to music and was reading about Webster Hall and stumbled across his Wikipedia page. I was, however referring to this Billboard article - ^[1] Noparking9 (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6327733/concert-venues-parting-ways-with-promoters-are-capitalizing-on-going-diy

Delete Sources do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. He doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The only in-depth article is from Encore. It's mainly an interview, and Encore is just short of advertorial.JSFarman (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews like that in Encore are problematic with respect to notability when there is essentially no analysis by the interviewer, making the piece neither secondary nor independent. The only other source that's more than a fleeting mention is CMJ New Music Report. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, EBSCO, Gale, and ProQuest found no other reliable sources for this Heath Miller, so does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. There isn't really anything worth merging or anywhere worth merging it to, although I suppose Webster Hall could be expanded by adding "founder of Excess dB Entertainment, a concert production/promotion company" (sourced to CMJ) after Miller's name to provide context. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swinerton[edit]

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

My extensive and specific PROD removed with absolutely no explanations therefore I still confirm since there are serious and noticeable concerns this was in fact a paid advertisement and the several different accounts show it also, which is then also not surprising everything listed here (from information to sources) is advertising. When all that can be offered as sourcing is advertising when the concerns explicitly state this is advertising is not only ignorance for the actual concerns, but it shows allowing such advertising completely damns this encyclopedia each time, risking unfixable damages. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in part (at least at the moment) per WP:NEXIST. Most articles of this sort are about recently-founded companies, often in the information technology or public relations industry. This article is about a construction company with over a century of history, and involvement in the construction of a large number of very famous structures. Now, notability isn't inherited, and my ten-minute search didn't give me any silver-bullet sources. This book (and yes, that's from a reliable publisher despite the travesty of a font they used) is probably only "trivial coverage". But it notes this company's involvement in the construction of the de Young and the Fairmont San Francisco, as well as giving us two former names for the company: first the Lindgren Company, then Swinerton and Walberg. That leads us to yet more sources. As Swinerton and Walberg, it was involved in an affirmative action court case considered an important part of California case law (see here, for example). And there are no shortage of references, as the Lindgren Company, in early 20th-century engineering periodicals, many of which I don't have immediate access to. Are some of them trivial or otherwise easily discounted? Unquestionably. But it doesn't take very many such sources, or very much media coverage of their high-profile construction work, to clear the notability bar. The current article is somewhat promotional, but not, in my opinion, irreparably so. It needs a lot of improvement; so do very many other articles. But that's not cause for deletion. Sourcing aside, I honestly have no idea what the nominator was intending by declaring the current material "not only ignorance for the actual concerns, but it shows allowing such advertising completely damns this encyclopedia each time, risking unfixable damages". This isn't unfixable, and it isn't damning the encyclopedia. It's just another article that needs more and better development from sources that aren't at the top of Google's list of links. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but stubify). I am confident that sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists to attest to the notability of this firm - they have been around for a very long time, and have done some very notable work. It is quite likely that some of those reliable sources are from the 1890s - 1940s and so not trivially discoverable by the standard "type it into Google" approach. All the same I think it's far more likely than not that the GNG could be met, so it would be illogical to delete the article. Having said that, the content is clearly unacceptable, being primarily an advertisement, and it needs severe pruning, which I will be happy to work on. Thparkth (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with user Thparkth. Expand the history section which includes most of the info that makes the company notable and remove the advertorial stuff. MB 03:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PMX Agency[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed with the basis of adding sources but there are far worse concerns here, one is that this was clearly a company-influenced advertisement and the several uncommitted users involved with this one article show it, everything listed is also exactly what the company wants to advertise about itself. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will work to improve this piece asap. Multiple independent sources have been cited to establish notability, particularly in the Awards section. National media attention is one mark of notability for a company and that attention is referenced/cited. Although I realize "it's like other agencies' Wikipedia pages" is not a valid defense of notability, I used Covario, Performics and iCrossing as models.

Regarding the Awards section: the linked bullets are often the article titles used by third parties (e.g. the article is titled "Internet Retailer's 2010 Top500 Guide® Ranks PM Digital the Fastest Growing SEM Agency"). I will review the bullets' verbiage to change any that do not match the third party source's title to do so.

Regarding COI - I've fully disclosed my affiliation with the company in my User talk page. Article topics are verifiable with independent, third-party sources. I just discovered the

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

tag and will apply it to this article's talk page. Thank you.

Jclayc (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the page's History section and added a Coverage section to detail the past seven years of national, non-PR coverage the agency's work has received from independent sources like the American Marketing Association, CNBC, BusinessInsider, eMarketer, InternetRetailer and others.

Jclayc (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Run-of-the-mill WP:ARTSPAM with little to no encyclopedic value once you strip away the puffery. Lacks a breadth of coverage in reliable secondary sources, as required by Wikipedia policy. Many of the supposed "non-PR coverage" links that the COI editor added in response to this AfD are actually primary sources, i.e. this, are not reliable sources, or do not actually cover the subject in depth. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising. Citobun (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Coverage section to eliminate any references that do not meet the definition of a secondary source (containing the author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts). Jclayc (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. Nothing in the article suggests an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails gng. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. The final rationale I'll submit to this discussion is that, while it may be on the edge of notability, the article does contain non-trivial coverage of the company by multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject over an extended period of time that range from synthesis of the company's research to corporate acquisition to awards... It documents far more notable coverage than (for example) 90% of the other companies listed in sections like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Companies_established_in_2001 If this deletion is part of a wider, more exclusionary approach to what companies are included in Wikipedia, so be it. It appears this article caught your attention before far more delete-worthy ones did. Jclayc (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Invalid argument. Read WP:OTHER CerealKillerYum (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peppercomm[edit]

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

I still confirm my specific PROD here which state and shows everything listed here is simply what the company wants to advertise about itself and including what other advertising information other people have published, either to help advertise said company or to republish company words; what has actually now been added are exactly that, and that's not surprising because that's what this company's business is and involves. I still note that the history clearly shows these same advertising intentions and actions. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable PR agency going about its business. Nothing stands out about this one. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't figure out what we can say this company is notable for. Unless we are going to say getting on a few lists of "best companies to work for" is enough? Anyone? I don't think these are significant awards but correct me if I'm wrong. Other media care who is going to be Time's person of the year, but I don't see other media rushing to tell us who got on Forbes' list of best workplaces. Everything else I see is WP:ROUTINE coverage, press releases, and advertorials. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Garrix discography. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+X[edit]

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

The page was previously deleted for failing requirements, it is now recreated but still has not met the requirements. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Without sufficient reliable sources as to a title, track listing or release date, +X should be redirected to Garrix or Garrix discography per WP:CHEAP. Because there are articles at [11], [12], [13] and Capital TV, this and/or its lower case equivalent are very likely to be valid search terms. Furthermore, as of now, the two terms have averaged more than 90 hits per month. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @TheMagnificentist:, when was +X (or +x) deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I remember nominating the same article for deletion few months ago, I assumed it was deleted. Redirection would be a good idea but there is no evidence to prove that +X is the confirmed album title. It could be something else, which is why, a deletion would be appropriate. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 14:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I recommend, that FOR NOW, +X be kept, as this is what is listed at Capital TV. If the album title changes, we can discuss complete deletion then. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Two issues - album title not known and no reliable sources. We will just leave this deletion talk page alone for the admins to decide but for now please do not add any unsourced content regarding +x which may not even be the album title and there's no sources to back your claim. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jax 0677 and others – for info, the first AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/+×

Redirect - Per Jax's rationale. Ss 112 20:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Speculation about this supposed album has been present on Wikipedia for more than a year, but nothing reliable ever supported the speculation. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FYI, it is now October 24, and AFAIK, the album has still not been released. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

<--

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wang sicong[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I'm not convinced of the notability of this person. The article has twice been deleted under A7, my CSD tag was removed from the third recreation by an IP who added some references. There still doesn't seem to be much assertion of significance other than he is the son of a rich person. All the references I can find seem to be passing mentions in relation to his father, or trivial tabloid stuff in the likes of the Daily Mail. I don't think there is enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. I would be fine with a redirect to Wang Jianlin but would prefer that it be deleted first. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEPFirst of all I rescued this page form several bad deletion notices. There are six pages of Google results that talk about this person in various capacities: Fuerdai, playboy, venture capitalist etc. I am in the West, and I see a whole lot of western editors dead set on having this deleted. Not sure why, but I think it would be wise to examine your own reasoning and assumptions. The guy has a Bloomberg profile! Forbes. Irish Times! Many, many more good refs. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 104.163.141.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Article about a BBC interview with Wang Sicong is here.104.163.141.133 (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the West, and I see a whole lot of western editors dead set on having this deleted No, there is no such conspiracy by Western editors. I am from Singapore and yes, I also want it deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block the creator for spamming This is nothing but spamming. A playboy son of a millionaire doesn't become notable simply because he is the son of the richest man in PRC. (WP:NOTINHERITED applies). The sourcing is also terrible. That "Forbes profile" doesn't work. This Bloomberg is a directory listing. And a trashy daily mail source. Please no. I would have been OK with a redirect, but this must be deleted first. Also Wang Sicong might need to be protected. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the creator (who was briefly blocked for socking) made a couple of personal attacks on this AfD here and here which I have reverted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERIT. As other users have said, the subject does not become notable because their father is rich. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP 王思聪是中国大陆的富二代人物，在中国的大陆是非常有名的人物。wang is a famous figure in china in chinese news, the following links:

if anyone cant read chinese news , please use google translation service !

王健林三得胡润榜首富王思聪个人财富达60亿
BBC纪录片迷思：英国人有偏见中国人只关心王思聪
王思聪评CNN采访遇阻:没素质 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, The refs are good. I just added another Forbes ref that spends two or three paragraphs discussing his company Prometheus capital. He is apparently famous in China, but I do not read Chinese. The CHinese editor who started the article is ading refs so this may perhaps help. There is a huge abundance of sources here that clearly deterine notability. BBC Interview, Forbes, Bloomberg profile. Yes he is the son, but on his OWN he has reveived a huge amount of press, both as a business person and as the "face of" the fuerdai-- the overly moneyed second generation children in China. Gross, tyes, but also notable. To simply reject him as the son of a rich person is to ignore the significance of this person, and to place your own personal prejudices against "rich kids" at the fore.The discussion should be added to the China -related discussions. The HUGE abundance of refs speak for themselves. Those voting WP:NOTINHERITED have perhaps not read the refs closely.104.163.141.133 (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That forbes ref is a Forbes/sites by a contributor (and not by Forbes with actualy journalistic oversight). They are not considered reliable sources (per multiple RSN posts). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there are references taking for paragraphs about his company then it may be notable but that doesn't mean he is. WP:NOTINHERITED applies there too. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How abotu a BBC interview and dozens of pages if individual articles on the person? Many many people are in wikipedia with much less coverage.104.163.141.133 (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem where is a Eurocentric western view, in addition to the fact that the people nominating the guy for deletion have not bothered to research the individual. You are all just going on not intherited, rahter than performing proper research.104.163.141.133 (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South China Morning Post Article. "Sandeep Sekhri, who’s built the food and beverage group through partnerships with top chefs and others, talks about its plans to work with Wang Sicong, the son of China’s richest man". In detail. Weird for someone who isn't notable huh?104.163.141.133 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty brief coverage - count how many sentences are actually about the subject. Notability on Wikipedia is different from notability in general. On Wikipedia it is simply a measure used to determine if the information is covered in a new article or if it can be covered somewhere else. The article (in its current form) is essentially a WP:PSEUDO. The reason for our notability guidelines is WP:WHYN -so that we can write a good article about the subject without violating WP:UNDUE and including insignificant events. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC article says : " Built by 28-year-old Wang Sicong, better known as the son of Chinese real estate billionaire Wang Jianlin, the 3.4 billion yuan ($516 million) Wanda Reign on the Bund hotel was designed by award winning British architect, Norman Robert Foster. While Wang the younger has long been in the public eye, it wasn't necessarily for any previous signs of business acumen."104.163.141.133 (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a CNBC original. It is a rehash of a Shanghaiist post (which you can see if you scroll down). These don't count. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was the subject of an EDITORIAL in Xinhua. As in XINHUA, STATE NEWSPAPER OF CHINA. Readership: hundreds of millions of people. "Xinhua is regarded as the most influential media outlet in China as almost every newspaper in China relies on Xinhua feeds for content."(Wikipedia) The state of China specifically published an editorial in their state newspaper to rebuke Wang Sicung's lifestyle. That makes him notable on its own. See life section of article for CNBC source. This is a particularly silly deletion discussion that is rooted in people not doing the proper research, and instead "sticking to their guns". Time to drop the stick folks. Xinhua. Editorial. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National Husband Of China Jokes 'Big Boobs' Is A Must For A Girlfriend; State News Agency Fires Back Seriously? WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and we need better than this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your issue is the same one that the STATE OF CHINA (population 1.5 billion?) had, which is why the State of China took time out to rebuke the (apparently non-notable) article subject in an editorial. WP:NOTNEWS is just another attempt to kill the article; his statments and the response by the state media are very notable and they are the epitome of news. The guy is notable in the extreme. Not for the best reasons, but he is notable. Drop the stick. You're hanging onto this because you don't like to be wrong. The references here are enormous and notability is VERY CLEARLY established. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage doesn't guarantee notability - the quality of coverage matters. Simply because Xinhua rebuked a guy (for being a millionaire's son and making those remarks) doesn't make the person notable. Also Xinhua is a potentially unreliable source. Good quality secondary coverage is something like this. It summarises the subject's achievements. The quality of sources you are providing is either brief coverage in context of something else or tabloidy news. Please also see WP:NOPAGE - we don't create a new article unless the coverage about the subject is so large that it cannot be covered elsewhere. If we remove all the WP:UNDUE parts, all we are left is that he is the son of the millionaire and he also owns a company. That can easily be mentioned in the article of his father. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the reasoning you have been using is just not rational. Drop the stick. Have a nice day. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 10:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTWORD. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and above. None of the proffered sources are good enough to pass WP:BLP - they're attack coverage without biographical depth. No evidence the subject actually passes WP:GNG or any more specific guideline - David Gerard (talk) 11:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources may attack his activities, but that is the crux of his notability as the face of the fuerdai. As to depth established by sources, it is perfectly acceptable to have multiple sources to establish coverage. Together the sources talk about his family, birth, birthplace, education in philosophy in London at UCL, lifestyle transgressions, response by both national and international media, social media popularity, founding of a venture capital company, its numerous investments and his investment and opening of a half-billion dollar hotel. This biogrphical depth (even though depth is not necessarily required in sources) is certainly more than cursory. Many diverse sources, all of which are reliable, high-quality sources, establish notability here. The articles in publications such as Xinhua, Financial Post, Foreign Policy, Forbes, National Post, the BBC interview and many many others all take Wang Sicung as the main subject, rather than being about him being uniquely his father's son. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin It will be important to hear from one or two editors with knowledge of the Chinese scene.104.163.141.133 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 104.163.141.133 (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INHERIT. Cabayi (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I have gone through and reviewed all the sources that have been added to the article. There's a lot so I will leave my comments under the hat below. In general I will note that nearly all of them refer to him or qualify him as the son of China's richest man. This is a clear indicator to me that he is not notable in his own right. As I said in my nomination, most of the coverage is trivial. If we only use the information in these sources, the majority of the article will be about a rich guy with lots of follows on the internet who likes to waste money on his dog and likes women with large chests. I am not seeing the significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG or to avoid a BLP full of trivia and WP:UNDUE material. Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of references

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

[14] - Trivial tabloid like coverage
[15] -one sentence passing mention. Most of the article is about his father
[16] - Trivial passing mention about him using an app. Most of the article is about the app
[17] - Directory listing
[18] - "provided to FT.com readers by Capital Profile" Capital Profile seems to be a PR firm so I question the independence of this
[19] - Trivial tabloid coverage - Daily Mail
[20] - Rich list profile of his father, doesn't mention him at all
[21] - Most of the article is about the companies he invested in
[22] - Two paragraphs on how many follows he has on Weibo and how popular he is with the ladies
[23] - Brief mention in article about spoiled rich kids
[24] - Brief article about a documentary he is making and how rich he is
[25] - Tabloid type article about buying iphones for his unimpressed looking dog
[26] - another tabloid like article about buying iphones for his dog
[27] - Partly about the documentary, partly about how rich he is, how rich his father is and how he wastes money on his dog
[28] - Article about how he was criticized for wanting a girlfriend will big boobs. Also covers how rich he is and how many follows he has on Weibo
[29] - another article about his big boobs comment. Most of the article is about corruption from the west and his father
[30] - Another article about the big boobs comment
[31] - More trivial rubbish about buying iphones for his dog
[32] - Another brief article about the big boobs comment
[33] - Article about interview with the father in which he blames overseas education for the boob comment
[34] - Yet another article about how he is so rich he can buy 8 iphones for his dog
[35] - Article about how rich he is, how he likes to waste money and make vulgar jokes on the internet, and how his father blames the west
[36] - Very brief passing mention in relation to a possible investment
[37] - Brief mention in relation to his investment fund
[38] - Article about esports streaming service he is setting up
[39] - Brief mention in article about streaming service.
[40]- Another brief mention in article about streaming service
[41] - Very brief mention in article about hotel he owns
[42] - Mention in relation to hotel. Most of the article is photos
[43] - Another article mostly about the hotel

王思聪是中国大陆的富二代人物，在中国的大陆是非常有名的人物。wang is a famous figure in china in chinese news, the following links: if anyone cant read chinese news , please use google translation service !

王健林三得胡润榜首富王思聪个人财富达60亿
BBC纪录片迷思：英国人有偏见中国人只关心王思聪
王思聪评CNN采访遇阻:没素质 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

王健林三得胡润榜首富王思聪个人财富达60亿 - I already commented on that one above, it's a one sentence passing mention in an article about his father. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

how about this？王思聪BBC专访，国民老公用品大揭秘 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This guys seems to get a good amount of coverage, and his own business ventures give him more notability than whatever he had for just being a trust fund kid. WP:NONENGLISH sources undoubtedly exist as well.--Prisencolin (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Salt (repeatedly started and deleted twice) by all means as there has been large and noticeable amounts of PR advertising intentions and along with the noticeable activities to show it, none of this article has anything actually amounting to substance and the persistence of such claims that "there's sources or he must perhaps be notable" is not what convinces an article; several safety measures exist for this such as WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14, WP:IAR (advertising once again) and WP:NOT, all which show we can actually choose to delete an advertisement if it also is non-notable and is causing damage by existing and being kept. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
how about this？王思聪BBC专访，国民老公用品大揭秘 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanglei123456 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Don't get me wrong, this guys sounds like a total prick, but notability isn't based on whether we dislike or like certain people or things. It's clear the amount of coverage he has is well above he bar for WP:GNG. Such sources include South China Morning Post, Sina.com, Sydney Morning Herald, Xinhua (not political news so should be RS), Business Insider, The Irish Times, and an interview with the BBC. WP:NOTINHERITED refers to a subject having WP notability without satisfying GNG or other requirements. People are famous for being famous and that's just something we've got to accept.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage of People who have inherited money and are notable only for extensively covered by the press on that account are usually not of encyclopedic importance--The relevant principle is NOT TABLOID often expressed as "famous for being famous" In cases where there is specific notability for something real, this is not applicable, nor does it apply when coverage reaches an extraordinary level. I have almost never ~voted to accept articles like this, but reading it, I think that this is one of the exceptions. For one thing, there's his real business interests--where he got the money for them is not relevant. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would indeed be helpful to have someone from WikiProject China weigh in -- I'll request their presence. A Train^talk 12:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is, of course, at its heart, a human interest story. He is at least no less notable than Bo Guagua, but in the popular consciousness of ordinary Chinese people, a lot more notorious. That he is the son of a famous tycoon is besides the point - he creates his own notoriety, much as the Kardashians create their own; there are many children of rich people who do not behave in eccentric enough ways to warrant the media attention given to them. That his notability (independent of his father) is reported in numerous reliable, reputable sources should have made this a SNOW close, let alone a lengthy drawn out discussion. I can see Chinese editors crying "systemic bias" if we somehow deleted this article while an article on Tiffany Trump would never even be put on the chopping block. Colipon+(Talk) 12:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an interesting and well written article that gives readers a window into life in China. It currently has 31 references - surely that’s a lot? The subject is a founder, chairman and director of companies, should have never been wp:CSD-A7. This war on spam is killing Wikipedia, Ottawahitech (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

As I noted above, most of these references are trivial mentions and tabloid like material that do not indicate notability. Also, this is the state of the article when I tagged for speedy deletion. The previous deleted versions were of a similar nature and clearly met the criteria for speedy deletion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

-->

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As Bearcat says, if anyone was genuinely looking for this, they'd probably look at Walesa's article first. Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth of Poland and Germany[edit]

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

Seems like pure WP:NOTNEWS. A politician mentions a hypothetical scenario, this gets coverage because the proposed scenario is so weird, but it doubtful anyone will mention it ever again. This is simply the case of media covering an aspect of a politician's speech, but it is unlikely the speech itself is notable, and the concept - even less so. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lech Wałęsa. The actual content of this entry belongs in the section "Lech Wałęsa#Post-presidency" for the year of 2013. The coverage in the media of what he said in 2013 was substantial, but this isn't real. Poeticbent talk 13:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Poeticbent. Wałęsa's statement received some attention, and (while respecting due weight) it bears mention in his article, but there's absolutely no independent coverage of this fantasy-future nation as a concept separate from him. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there were any genuinely serious organized campaign of trying to make this happen, then it would probably warrant an article — but if all we've got is one politician spitballing in one speech, then there's no need for a standalone article about it. And the unlikely event that any significant number of readers was actually looking for this, they'd already know who said it and look for it in his BLP before expecting a separate article — so I just don't see what purpose a redirect would actually serve. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Su[edit]

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

No doubt that Crystal is a talented little girl. There may come a day when her playing makes her highly notable. This does not seem to be the time. It is too soon. She has competed and done well in competitions, but I don't believe they are of the level yet to satisfy WP:NMUSIC #9. LadyofShalott 04:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 04:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon. She appears to be a talented musician, but the article provides none of the reliable and verifiable sources about the subject that would be necessary to establish notability, nor have I found what would be needed in my search. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 12-year-olds are very rarely notable, and the sources here do not make things otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 12:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nichapat Suphap[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, no applicable coverage, editor-in-chief of an apparently non-notable website. Largoplazo (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. The two references currently in the article are not independent. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree. Minimal sources available. I've searched offline libraries too (fashion magazines et al). Can't find anything except minimal mentions. Lourdes 07:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Grange Hill. I have however redirected to Grange Hill as it appears to be a reasonable search term. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Herbert[edit]

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

Delete: does not meet threshold for notability -- entire career is 41 episodes of one British soap opera (see here). Quis separabit? 02:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with above. Not nearly notable enough. Zjschulman (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purnima Talwalkar[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. None of my searches could yield anything to support GNG/SNG. I suggest a WP:BIODEL here.. Lourdes 07:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the news articles I found mention this actor in reference to Smita Talwakar, Shashank Ketkar, etc. Notability is not inherited from whose wedding you attend. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Walker (Australian actress)[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 02:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and hasn't had any significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR either. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sealy[edit]

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

Being a former member of the Globetrotters does not bring automatic notability like an NBA player or another of an equal caliber. Sealy would need to meet GNG which he clearly fails to do. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would argue that Globetrotters players of that era probably should bring automatic notability like the NBA, but that doesn't matter for Sealy since he played in the National Basketball League, which is a precursror of the NBA and does confer automatic notability [44]. 13:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep - meets WP:GNG as having played in the NBL (which merged with the BAA to form the NBA). Rikster2 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep Meets NBASKETBALL since he was a NBL player. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBASKETBALL, as having played in the NBL. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASKETBALL as a former National Basketball League player. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6327733/concert-venues-parting-ways-with-promoters-are-capitalizing-on-going-diy

[1]