Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 October	8 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcore[edit]

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

A WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable fintech company. The claim to notability are minor industry awards, including "European Fintech Awards 2016" and being ranked "Number One Fintech company from Czech Republic by Scalable Capital". The latter article was recently deleted at an AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scalable Capital, so these two may be related. I recently removed a swath of "product brochure" content (diff) but what remains is not convincing. PROD removed by article creator. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally a bombarded advertisement specifying literally only what the company wants to say about itself, the sources are themselves mirroring this so they cannot therefore be taken seriously especially if it's actually PR. The history shows several new accounts noticeably focusing with this one article so it's clear to say this is only existing for company-controlled advertising. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete and being sourced to Bitcoin blogs is evidence against notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 9 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mira Gonzalez[edit]

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

Entirely unnotable person. Frequent Inappropriate editing. This article is entirely self indulgent and does not belong on this site, especially for someone who has absolutely no notability at all. Epicmedic0 (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Epicmedic0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if the nominator could, instead of repeating the assertion that the subject is not notable in a rather uncivil way, explain why the sources in the article and available elsewhere don't amount to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems to be attracting 'contributors' who have little or no regard for Wikipedia's rules, especially regarding biographies of living persons, for dubious agendas -- possibly people associated with the poet (or maybe the poet herself?), maybe as a way to attract attention, or bring more eyeballs to this page? For example, there is vandalism here and here and here -- that is, the vandalism (seems to be) not just the work of one person, but numerous ones, which can consume much time here trying to keep the article shipshape and without slanders or smears (I had to search back into the history to get to a neutral-sounding version such as this one). I suggest that if the article is kept (which it should -- she's clearly a notable poet) that steps be taken to semi-protect or full-protect this article so that only established contributors in good standing can make changes. So I'm copy-pasting my 'keep' comments from the previous AfD discussion. (from first AfD:) Notable poet, intelligent impartial critical reviews of her poetry, references meet GNG. Plus, I read parts of her poems; she is a skilled writer. Also, check out the pageviews averaging 40-50 day spiking recently to 1700+, suggesting she is building an audience, probably with young thumb tribe types. True, I have never heard of most of these sources, but the writing in them is intelligent, grammatically coherent, and sharp, suggesting they're authentic. Commentary about her poetry is not one-sided and spammy but critically adept, such as this review, plus this review in Nylon magazine -- note that Nylon (magazine) has a wiki-article. This reviewer here knows poetry sufficiently to use terms like anaphora which I might have thought was a woman's name. Plus Gonzalez is up for a possible poetry award from this magazine. She is getting attention from alt-lit pop culture sources such as this one. Her publisher is a start-up by a guy with new thoughts about publishing. Numerous sources, meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC) (updating pageview link)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NPOET and WP:GNG, article has plenty of sources reflecting Gonzalez's notability, here are some more: from The Guardian - "Gonzalez writes about the internet a lot, and has a particular talent for describing the absence that a life spent online can create. .. It makes sense that people living in the internet age find themselves drawn to the permanent dusk of Gonzalez’s poetry. It sums up the confusions of an age when we are able to dip into a celebrity’s private life at a whim, or cause a furore with a hashtag, filling our lives with endless photos of ourselves."Mira Gonzalez’s poems are quietly defining texts of the digital era, a short interview by Publishers Weekly - Four Questions for...Poet Mira Gonzalez, and a discussion with Gonzalez and Tao Lin on KCRW about their book Selected Tweets - "Often dark and despairing, but also bitingly funny, Mira sees tweets as being as essential to literature as haiku."Mira Gonzalez and Tao Lin: Selected Tweets . Coolabahapple (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, DOES NOT meet WP:NPOET requirements. Gonzalez is NOT regarded as an important figure nor is she widely cited. Her concept, theory and technique is not new, she has not created a well-known work and her work is not significant. She fails EVERY requirement. Furthermore, her "notability" is based on the state of sourcing in articles. The edits (and the page itself were created by her specifically to create a sense of notability. This pages fails the meet even the most minimal requirements. Cdahlkvist (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC) — Cdahlkvist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. She easily meets the WP:GNG with a source like this one in The Guardian.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nobody has offered any explanation of why the significant coverage in independent reliable sources listed in the article and above is insufficient for notability per WP:GNG. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Easily and obviously meets notability criteria, contrary to the assertions of SPAs who are WP:NOTHERE. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 21:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject quite clearly meets WP:GNG. Multiple independent reliable sources such as [1], [2] and [3]. I would suggest a WP:SNOW close. Omni Flames (talk) 02:17, 12 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auth0[edit]

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

Anon-dePROD with the following: "Removed the proposal to delete the page. Auth0 has been around for over 3 years and is a major player in the Authentication SaaS space. The company has contributed massively to the open source community with various libraries for authentication and more." Even with the anon's additions, the page still fails WP:CORP with no apparent coverage in WP:RS that would meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The page is full of laden language and essentially serves as an advertisement. FalconK (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are additional independent sources that cover Auth0:

https://techcrunch.com/2016/08/24/auth0-series-b/ http://www.geekwire.com/2015/auth0-wants-make-logging-in-easier-with-new-password-free-authentication-service/ http://onehungrymind.com/auth0-vs-stormpath/ http://thevarguy.com/secure-cloud-data-storage-news-and-information/101315/auth0-wants-make-passwords-go-away-mobile-and-iot-dev just to name a few — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.82.57 (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fluffy terminology can be easily removed. There is plenty of good coverage. TechCrunch is a good source [4], as is USA Today [5], and The Seattle Times [6]. WP:AFD is not cleanup. Cleanup occurs when an editor rolls up their sleeves to fix a problem themselves, even if the relevant articles seem boring. Yvarta (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all the coverage about them, and all of what you linked, is just about them raising money. There's nothing to say about them (yet). I, too, looked at the article and couldn't find much worth writing about in an encyclopedia. FalconK (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom I'm unconvinced by what RS coverage there is. If kept, this will be about a paragraph - David Gerard (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:CORPDEPTH met via coverage in USA Today, Hacked, and Seattle Times. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In what world is Hacked an RS? - David Gerard (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess....not in your world? Even with striking that source, which is fine by me, there are still at least two solid sources, which is what's required to meet WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; the article largely consists of intricate detail on a non-notable entity (for example, providing a handy table on all of the funding rounds. The article exists as a client / investor prospectus, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such articles. If it were to be kept it would need to be reduced to a paragraph at best to comply with Wikipedia policies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like a relatively interesting idea, but so far all of the coverage is routine "new company raising money" stuff. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:57, 15 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KC Hersey[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer player. Plays for Baltimore Bohemians in the Premier Development League. This is an amateur league, which fails WP:NSOCCER. He also fails WP:NCOLLATH, and there are no independent sources to show that he meets WP:PERSON. All of the article sources are team or league bios and stats, and I have found no significant independent sources. Meters (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a WP:FPL or in a Tier-1 match, so fails WP:NFOOTY. There is nothing to indicate subject meets WP:NCOLLATH or WP:NHSPHSATH. There does not appear to be any significant independent coverage, so WP:GNG is also failed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete- Its a shame because its a nicely written article, but yes fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFOOTY. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:24, 14 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 Amaranthe. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jake E[edit]

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

Like all great weeds in the garden this one just refuses to die, its been axed repeatedly at csd for A7 non-notability issues but keep coming back. Listing here fore community input, and I submit that any deletion ruling should be followed up with salting since as I noted this keeps getting recreated. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JLaTondre, Anthony Bradbury, RHaworth, and SwisterTwister: Logs and history say you've had a hand in deleting or redirecting the article, since this keeps getting recreated I wanted to give you a chance to weigh in here if you like. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the only thing I'm seeing here regarding any kind of notability for the subject himself (rather than the band) are two interviews, [7] and [8]. I would say these represent significant coverage, as they are both direct interviews with just Jake E. They seem to be independent sources, but reliability might be the sticking point as it isn't clear if there is any editorial oversight here. While they are not particularly high profile sources, they do seem to just barely satisfy the criteria outlined at WP:GNG if deemed reliable sources. If someone else could weigh in on whether or not these two sources are reliable or not, that should give us our answer to this AfD. I will !vote accordingly. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if those sources are in general reliable they are only reliable in these cases for confirming that the subject said what he said in those interviews. They don't confirm in their own voices the truth of anything that he said. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is very true... And to be honest i'm just doing to say Delete and Salt, because these sources are flimsy at best. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect and Salt please, he's not independently notable for his own article and he's clearly only best known for that; being restarted multiple times this year ibcluding since 2008 itself is excessive. SwisterTwister talk 00:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, redirect to Amaranthe and protect the redirect - the band is notable (multiple chart hits), but he's got no notability outside of it - David Gerard (talk) 08:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable outside the band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amaranthe as suggested by David Gerard, and then lock that redirect so this article is not continually recreated. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:59, 15 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ellen DeGeneres Show (season 1)[edit]

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

Substub. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! You, dear nominator, managed to find a stub article less than two hours old, one season of a well-respected, clearly notable talk show. Yep, it's not worth much now. Does it have potential? Looking at a couple of the other season articles, it sure looks like it. Did you think to even give the editor who created the stub a little bit of breathing room for it? I get that a talk show doesn't have the same latecomer appeal that scripted shows do, but I'm just completely shaking my head at this nomination. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, no valid reason for deletion advanced. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:00, 15 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myrmecophila brysiana[edit]

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

I wouldn't be nominating this if there was a {{substub}} template. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All species are notable, and the nomination lacks any valid argument for deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a species. The reason why there is no "substub" template is that there is no such valid concept. Our shortest articles are simply stubs. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article with some basic information and another 3 references. We even have an image for the orchid. Species are inherently notable, per WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. --Mark viking (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the spirit of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was a valid species stub before, is a well-referenced species stub now.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - recognized for 165 years. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – all species are notable; length of stub is not an issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 14 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 per Criterion 3 as "[t]he nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Despite the nomination statement's claim that there are no sources in the article, at the time of nomination, the article had a valid inline source as well as external links that could serve as references. The nominator may have been misled by the out-of-date {{unreferenced}} banner, but it's clear he did not so much as skim the article. (As an aside, per ARTN, a lack of sourcing in the article is not a valid reason for deletion.)

Based on Citobun's evidence, Criterion 2(b) may also apply here. (non-admin closure) Rebb ing 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Central Kowloon Route[edit]

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

Article does not cite any source it therefore fails WP:GNG. Source found are promotional links Jamzy4 (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one news link on the article, http://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1236039-20160115.htm, isn't terribly good I agree. Gnews reveals more. ~~But not much more. I would say weak delete (and very selectively merge if desired) to~~ Hong Kong Strategic Route and Exit Number System does mention the proposed route, unreferenced. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The news sources mentioned by Shawn are probably enough to keep this, and the sources found by the Google Scholar and Google Books searches linked by the nomination process make notability beyond doubt. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I didn't get a chance to go beyond Gnews. Of course, then there's also the question of Chinese language coverage we're missing. This may well meet GNG, easily, if non-English sources are considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep there's quite a bit of Gbooks coverage, too. I'll stay neutral but this does seem to be a notable planned (if delayed) transport infrastructure project in one of the world's leading urban centres. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators - I created this article. This AfD is part of a slew of revenge nominations that Jamzy4 has made today on articles I created, including:

The reason that Jamzy4 is seeking revenge against me is the three below deletion nominations in which I allege that he is an undisclosed paid editor representing non-notable Nigerian musical artists, as evidenced by the highly promotional tone of the articles, the self-authored promotional photos, the lack of reliable sources, and the fact that this user hasn't contributed articles on any other subjects.

This and other articles that Jamzy4 nominated today were selected at random and the nominations should be dismissed. Jamzy4 is not here to build an encyclopedia. This is a waste of time. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 03:34, 8 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Jobs (TV pilot)[edit]

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

TV pilot announced in 2010, but never actually produced, with no further development since. All references provided are from redundant 2010 announcement news stories reporting the same information, failing WP:NOT/WP:NOTNEWS: "Routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The announcement of a project in development 5-6 years ago is not itself notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The finished project would be the notable subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news on this since 2011. Can be recreated if it ever actually gets off the ground. ABF99 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a case of an article that was create WP:TOOSOON and then wound up languishing here ever since. The show was never produced, and has remained in limbo with no developments on it since 2011. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:24, 13 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bithiri Sathi[edit]

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

Not so notable per WP:NACTOR and fails WP:BLPSOURCES. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 20:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero search results that completely fail GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are some hits on WP:INDAFD search engines here, which include few passing mentions in English-language newspapers like this one and one or two interviews (I think) in Telugu language newspapers ([9]). I do not know Tamil, therefore cannot comment on coverage within their, but as far as Hindi and English language sources go, this one seems to me ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia failing both, WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Anup [Talk] 07:29, 9 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. WP:SK#2 - bad faith nomination. Discussion about redirection/merging can take place on article talk page if still desired. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 06:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Kowloon Cultural Centre[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, Reliable source not found. Jamzy4 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (with a smerge as needed) to Lower Ngau Tau Kok (II) Estate, where the Redevelopment section discusses these plans (briefly, and can be expanded). On one hand, there are sources for this, such as this one. On the other hand, this is a WP:CRYSTAL project, not slated to open until 2021, and with a long previous history of development delays. Policy urges to err on the side of caution with precisely this sort of future location. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note below. Additionally, construction is well underway on this building. When I have more time I can add more sources from English and Chinese media. But most importantly, this nomination was brought here in revenge by a single-purpose account with conflict of interest, not in good faith. Citobun (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators - I created this article. This AfD is part of a slew of revenge nominations that Jamzy4 has made today on articles I created, including:

The reason that Jamzy4 is seeking revenge against me is these three deletion nominations against him in which I allege that he is an undisclosed paid editor representing non-notable Nigerian musical artists, as evidenced by the highly promotional tone of the articles, the self-authored promotional photos, the lack of reliable sources, and the fact that this user hasn't contributed articles on any other subjects.

This and other articles that Jamzy4 nominated today were selected at random and the nominations should be dismissed. Jamzy4 is not here to build an encyclopedia. This is a waste of time. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 03:34, 8 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 delete (G5) by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Teacher[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the WP:NOTFILM criteria. One article source only mentions it in passing. Can't find reliable sources or significant coverage. Yintan 20:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added significant new reliable sources on the article. Keep the article.Riisen (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I've deleted the article under CSD#G5 as it was created by a confirmed sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:43, 12 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 due to bad faith nomination. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Kuang English School[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and as a school it fails WP:NACADEMIC Jamzy4 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Included in the list of secondary schools by the Hong Kong Education Bureau, so covered under WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NACADEMIC concerns people in academia like professors; it doesn't apply to schools at all. The guideline for schools is NSCHOOLS. Rebb ing 03:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to administrators - I created this article. This AfD is part of a slew of revenge nominations that Jamzy4 has made today on articles I created, including:

The reason that Jamzy4 is seeking revenge against me is these three deletion nominations against him in which I allege that he is an undisclosed paid editor representing non-notable Nigerian musical artists, as evidenced by the highly promotional tone of the articles, the self-authored promotional photos, the lack of reliable sources, and the fact that this user hasn't contributed articles on any other subjects.

This and other articles that Jamzy4 nominated today were selected at random and the nominations should be dismissed. Jamzy4 is not here to build an encyclopedia. This is a waste of time, especially considering the article is well sourced with references to the South China Morning Post. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 03:34, 8 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Plains[edit]

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

Article about an apparently non-notable road. Prod was declined. Peridon (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a road in Cobb County, and that's about it. There's not anything else notable about it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, and WP:50k. We frequently delete such pages. This appears to be a run of the mill side road. Not all streets or roads are notable; perhaps one per 50,000 residents per community might be notable. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 13 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 herein is for this article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tunney Hunsaker[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOX and is a not notable small town politician. He was the first to fight Ali first, but such things aren't covered under NBOX. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Does not pass WP:GNG either. Notability is not inherited by who you interact with.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has a biographical profile in an entire chapter devoted to him in the book Facing Ali. Muhammad Ali: His Life and Times features an interview of Hunsaker. The Ali-Hunsaker fight is a historic boxing match because it was the first fight of Ali as a professional.Finally, Hunsaker must have been a prominent figure in his own right considering he has a bridge named after him.The official website of the eponymous bridge ( https://officialbridgeday.com/in-the-shadow-of-the-new-river-gorge-bridge-the-tunney-hunsaker-bridge/ ) says: "The bridge was eventually renamed in honor of Tunney Hunsaker, the long time Chief of Police in Fayetteville. Tunney was the youngest Chief of Police in WV when he got the job at age 27." Soham321 (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bridges and infrastructure are regularly named after local people. How many communities named something after a fallen soldier since the war on terror started? Source for this information may not pass WP:RS too. It is a privately run website....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Some more material about Hunsaker which indicates that he was a notable figure: Obituary in Los Angeles Times and What happened to Tunney Hunsaker. Soham321 (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My interest is bridges, rather than boxing. Whether or not Hunsaker himself is sufficiently notable is one question; the notability of the bridge named after him is a separate question. To the latter, I must say, this bridge is notable as a predecessor of the major New River Gorge Bridge. Therefore: Keep, in some form. One good way to cover the bridge is to keep a biographical article, in which coverage of the bridge should be kept rather like it is now. (A refinement would be to add a heading.) In case there is enough opinion that the biographical article should be deleted, an alternative would be to write a brief article on the bridge, which would include at least a brief mention of who Hunsaker was. But can we delete the bio, without providing an article on the bridge? I don't care for that at all. Oaklandguy (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article transcends WP:NBOX. It meets WP:GNG by virtue of an obituary in the Los Angeles Times and a feature in another major national newspaper. It's not a WP:INHERITED case, Hunsaker is not just a footnote to Ali's career, he's a personage "worthy of note", as WP:GNG terms it. It's the sources that have decided that. Spicemix (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He hasn't "inherited" notability by fighting Ali first, but instead has become notable himself at least partially because of that fight. The LA Times obit and the profile in Facing Ali make that much clear. agtx 17:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I removed some unbelievably minor trivia to concentrate on the notable part of his career. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Weiss (filmmaker)[edit]

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

I can't see a credible claim of notability here. TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands sole claim to fame is making a nonnotable version of a notable novel - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem here is that wikipedia notability is being asserted by the author based on the subject being a filmmaker. Yet his sole work in that industry is not notable, comprising sources that merely prove existence. However, other sources--multiple and credible (Billboard, NY Times, etc)--indicate that his true notability is for creating and running Oswald Mill Audio. I think this article can be salvaged by rebadging it "Jonathan Weiss (Entrepreneur)" rather than (filmmaker). Another thing to consider is to make the article about the Audio company rather than about Weiss. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment The company may me notable, but that does not necessarily make the ceo notable.
Delete as there is no inherited notability from any works, regardless of what information is involved therefore there's nothing else to suggest otherwise better if there's no independent substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 10 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 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix#Budgie Nine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Budgie Nine[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS TheLongTone (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix#Budgie Nine. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix#Budgie Nine. DH85868993 (talk) 09:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article documents important issues for Australians traveling overseas. Warbler21 (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nominatorThe suggested redirect looks like a good solution.14:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Redirect Support the redirect. Some of the content in the article may warrant being transferred, although there are multiple errors (eg. article states "group is notable because it consists of Australian politicians" which the group does not, there was a political staffer, not an actual politician). -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2016 Malaysian Grand Prix#Budgie Nine - WP:NOTNEWS. Another routine news about a group of Western tourists misbehaving, getting into trouble and then crying about it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a minor incident involving some Australian tourists. There shouldn't be any mention of this on the relevant grand prix article as this had low relevance on absolutely no impact on the event. T v x1 10:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is judged hereabouts on the attention independent sources paid to it. This passes that test. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring to delete inbound links to this article. Wait until the AfD decides, one way or another. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 13 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 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Myrea Pettit[edit]

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

Fails GNG: Unable to verify independent, reliable sources offering more than a trivial mention. Worldcat alone obviously doesn't establish notability. —swpb^T 13:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment She's actually somewhat well-known for her fairy art, but I can't find RS coverage actually about her - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep though it's a bit in a gray area, I found the following, not great, but not completely trivial either. We do have to acknowledge that people who do this type of genre-focused art will not have coverage in the New York TImes, even if they are fairly well-recognized within their genre. Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources located:

http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Myrea+Pettit
- https://books.google.com/books/about/500_Fairy_Motifs.html?id=84I5h-tdbBsC&hl=en
http://www.northampton.towntalk.co.uk/local/famous-people/d/728/myrea-pettit/
http://www.ovguide.com/myrea-pettit-9202a8c04000641f8000000000750d8a
http://wisewomanmentor.com/art-gallery/3214334
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Myrea-Pettit
http://www.faemagazine.com/myrea-pettit-on-antony-gormleys-fourth-plinth/
- http://www.webarchive.org.uk/ukwa/target/32145446

As usual, most of Montana's signature blind dump of what must be every google hit can be immediately dismissed from consideration as any sort of indicator of notability:
- ~~http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=worldcat_org_all&q=Myrea+Pettit and https://books.google.com/books/about/500_Fairy_Motifs.html?id=84I5h-tdbBsC&hl=en~~ Not independent.
- http://www.northampton.towntalk.co.uk/local/famous-people/d/728/myrea-pettit/ Local coverage without byline—potentially valid if authorship can be established, but even then, not enough on its own.
- ~~http://www.ovguide.com/myrea-pettit-9202a8c04000641f8000000000750d8a~~ Utterly trivial. Subject is mentioned–barely–as one of 12 artists in someone's calendar.
- ~~http://wisewomanmentor.com/art-gallery/3214334~~ I can't even access this site, because it's being blocked by my spam filter. That can't be a good sign.
- ~~http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Myrea-Pettit~~ There is literally nothing there.
- ~~http://www.faemagazine.com/myrea-pettit-on-antony-gormleys-fourth-plinth/~~ No evidence to be found of reliability for this site.

—swpb^T 20:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why is it so difficult to just say, "here is my assessment of the sources presented" without adding the personal attack language? This was far from a "signature blind dump of what must be every google hit" (If it was, you'd see facebook and instagram...), it's a presentation of what I could find that is potentially useful to establish notability. Even I think this one is not the hill to die on, but I think it's important to give the article a fair look and not just dismiss it because of its subject content. Montanabw^(talk) 22:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you want to challenge the idea that this was a "blind" dump? The alternative, that you examined each page, saw (or failed to see) that it was invalid, and still posted it, is far more damning. Supposing that you were merely lazy is the best case scenario. —swpb^T 12:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try this, swpb: "I looked at the pages, I filtered out what was obvious cruft, and what is left I thought provided some potential indicia of notability and have presented them here for the community to decide. Genre artists aren't going to be covered in the New York Times and I read WP:N as saying we have a presumption of notability in the gray areas, and fairy artists, are, unquestionably, in a genre and a gray area. But I am trying to put my preconceptions aside and look at the issue objectively. Even you note the Northampton one is potentially OK, we all know many press releases do not have authors and are still legitimate sources, and unless you can assert the faemagazine is not independent, that's two, even if you think it's . If your spam filter is blocking sites like wisewomanmentor, hm, that's a potential problem, but I can load it and it appears to be powered by http://www.wildapricot.com, which looks like a Canadian site that provides cloud services for nonprofit groups; sometimes these smaller web sites do get blacklisted for a while if they generate a lot of unexpected traffic, but it looks like it's not a spam site to me. I see three potentially decent sources plus some additional mentions and pretty significant business being generated. To me that all leads up to "weak keep." This isn't a hill I'm going to die on, but I am getting quite sick of being personally attacked for making a sincere attempt to see if there is some potential indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 22:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Full points for effort, but if multiple people have said that your estimation of notability is off - as they have - this may not in fact be each of them personally attacking you, but instead it might be that your estimation of notability is off - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm happy enough with my "win percentage", if that's what you are talking about (77.5% of the time I either vote with the majority or there is no consensus). Sometimes the guidelines themselves are the problem and my consistent participation and commenting on repeating issues is, slowly, changing some things for the better and generating useful debate on others (there is a good discussion about beauty pageant articles, for example). I get a few wrong, and I can live with that, a few other things I just don't comment on because I've decided they aren't worth the fight, but the point is that civility matters. It is also important to not only address the systemic bias problem on Wikipedia, which is huge but also we need to address what one user referred to as "editor bias" —the "I've never heard of it or I think it's stupid, so it's not notable" problem. Bottom line? The people who personally attack me for my assessments and in doing so get so livid and spittle-frothing-angry that they cross the line of civility have no credibility with me. I treat their remarks as the temper tantrums that they are. Stay civil, and I'll win a few and I lose a few. But I'm often enough in the right to keep plugging away at it. Montanabw^(talk) 03:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Given that what I mostly see is you claiming negative assessments of your provided sources are personal attacks, the spittle appears to be flying in the other direction - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, using personalized language like "blind dump" and "lazy" is a personal attack. Anyone can critique the sources without getting personal about it. Montanabw^(talk) 07:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        There's an easy way to avoid increasingly strong criticism from an increasing number of directions—stop doing what you've been told over and over again is unacceptable. —swpb^T 20:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        For the record, I appreciate montanabw's source listings. Also, I find swpb's easy dismissal of worldcat results to be very strange. The Steve 19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Worldcat lists essentially every book ever published—you know that, right? A listing in Worldcat has never been considered evidence of notability, by anyone. The flaws with the rest of Montana's sources are thoroughly documented; what's strange is how you could see fit to defend any of it at all. —swpb^T 13:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, not even close. Worldcat only lists books held by libraries. As in, bought and curated by librarians. As in, considered worthwhile reading by libraries. Its a small fraction of all books published. You didn't know that, obviously. As to your other point, see here... The Steve 07:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        100% wrong. The Library of Congress, just for one, holds or catalogs, exactly as I said, "essentially every book ever published". Not some small fraction, but nearly every single modern one. That's supposed to support a case for GNG? Give us all a break. BTW, I'm traveling this weekend, so it's unlikely I'll be able to see or respond to anything else here. Luckily, there's no reason to worry about which way this AfD is going. —swpb^T 13:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - "the Library does not retain all of these works..." ..."the Library of Congress retains copies of every publication in the English language that is deemed significant" (emphasis mine). The LoC rejects 1 of every 5 items that are submitted to it, and those are mostly US publications. That means it only holds 80% of things sent to it Plenty of books published in the US never receive an LCC. Even if we're generous and assume that the LoC holds 66% of all works published in the US, their foreign holdings are far smaller, percentage-wise. I seriously doubt they hold even 20% of all books published in any given year. And again, Worldcat only shows holdings, not everything given an LCC. The Steve 06:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's put the goal posts back where they belong—you can't say with a straight face that world cat is enough to meet GNG, because it isn't, by 1000 miles. —swpb^T 01:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Not in this case. However, DGG (a librarian) has used worldcat holdings as his AFD reasoning many times, and I generally agree with his analyses, both keep and delete. Ergo, my confusion over your dismissal of those results. Worldcat results should be seriously considered, even if you aren't using them as your sole measurement. The Steve 00:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        You're using DGG as your AfD guide? I think I found the heart of the problem. —swpb^T 12:41, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Fairy wondering why there are so many snarky arguments
        
        OK people, no more snarkiness. Let it rest. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Her work has not been the subject of any kind of critical analysis. As far as I can tell, there simply is no material in reliable sources to base a biography on. Mduvekot (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:GNG and has made substantial coverage. –seanhaley1 (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Suspicious account: Please note that the above contributor has recently created an account, rapidly made 10 edits and then started !voting on multiple AfDs, many of which don't make sense. See Special:Contributions/Seanhaley1 for their edits. There is a possibility that this is an undisclosed paid editor/canvassed editor/sockpuppet who is probably voting on multiple AfDs to hide the actual target. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —swpb^T 13:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DEL7 (although a weak one). I looked through a bunch of databases but was unable to find coverage in reliable sources. While the subject has created some really nice fairy art, it is hard to find what is the impact - any awards/museum collections. Because of the paucity of information in reliable secondary sources, I am going for a delete. Per WP:WHYN there is simply not enough information available on which to base an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability - fails WP:GNG, and I can't see that any alternative basis for notability applies. Thparkth (talk) 21:14, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet M. Stenftenagel[edit]

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

This article's subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. YHoshua (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources indicate that she comes even close to passing any of the guidelines for the notability of academics. Beyond this all sources are from onrganizations she has connections with, and only show she is active in southern Indiana community affairs in a way that is far below the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:28, 11 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 redirect may be created at editorial discretion, and protection/salting requested at WP:RFPP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan Pandit[edit]

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

Non-notable person, chairing a non-notable local organisation. Most sources only mention him in passing. Awards and Nominations section is unsourced. Yintan 12:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources makes ineligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. I had earlier boldly turned it into a redirect and it appears that an IP user has been repeatedly restoring it to standalone piece what this title doesn't deserve.

Here we have two options, we restore the redirect to Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal and semi-protect the title, or just delete and get over this thing. Anup [Talk] 16:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This non-notable article has repeatedly been redirected to "Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal", yet again and again someone reverts back the redirection, with no stated reason. In my opinion, this article needs to be deleted completely, or if some protection can been enabled to keep the redirection intact, then this article needs to definitively be redirected to Bhartiya Gau Raksha Dal. ♥ Shri Sanam Kumar ♥ 19:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is the article entirely flooded with listing other people or groups as named mentions, but there's still nothing for an actually convincing and substantial article of his own information, simply tossing information and sources is not the same thing as a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very well, delete this non-notable piece. I'll watch the title for couple of weeks and if required, will make a request of salting the title. Anup [Talk] 04:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it's been recreated a few times, salting might be a good idea, yes. Yintan 10:16, 10 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) 08:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher–Blair consensus[edit]

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

Personal essay on topic/concept of unproven notability. Uses a term scarcely found anywhere. Many sources, but none actually talk about the article subject, and are used merely for original synthesis. Possible POV fork of Blatcherism. See also discussion on talk page.Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above, seems like an undergrad essay. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Also agree. Blatcherism seems even more egregious actually. Mezigue (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it is an essay. Blatcherism looks like a possible AfD too. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely an essay; a worthy subject for a PPE thesis, but original research does not a Wikipedia article make. This is Paul (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like OR. South Nashua (talk) 03:11, 9 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) 08:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sat Lal Razdan[edit]

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

Delete: Fails GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. His only claim to fame is that he has allegedly taught some famous people and a condolence message by former Chief Minister of J & K. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete looks like a vanity article. Sources are not convincing. LibStar (talk) 11:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately this person lived in the era and place, for which unavailability of kind of sources we seek, is no big surprise. I found one mention in Tribune India, which states that the school he worked at awarded him the title, "teacher of the millennium". Anup [Talk] 07:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only are these challenging subjects to analyze, the user himself has confirmed it's in fact not notable, therefore with the article not conveying anything else better, there's nothing to suggest there's currently an applicably convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED. Even if we assume that it's true that he once taught Prince Charles, what did he teach him? How to pick his nose properly? There is totally lacking any significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because he might have once had a prince in his class does not make a teacher notable; we need a lot more. Compare Joyce Carol Oates, John Adams, Sr., etc. This page is a disaster. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 13 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Lindh[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress. There is a claim that she won the Eugene O'Neill Award in 2004 but I have been unable to find a reliable source (only mirror sites and Wikia) that this is the case. Quis separabit? 00:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Eugene O'Neill Award is in fact O'Neillstipendiet, i.e., O'Neill Scholarship, rather than "true" award. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Re the Eugene O'Neill Award, it is called either "O'Neillstipendiet" or "O'Neillpriset" in Swedish, and it is most definitely an award rather than a scholarship - it's supposed to be given to "highly deserving actors" at the Royal Dramatic Theatre in Stockholm. The naming confusion in Swedish shouldn't mislead us into thinking that it's a scholarship for aspiring actors or anything like that. Here is one source confirming that Lindh received the award in 2004, and this press release from Dramaten also lists her as a recipient. (I'm not !voting yet, because I intend to add more information and sources to the article first, but I am going to !vote keep as soon as I have done that.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played several notable roles, and has received not only the O'Neill Award as discussed above, but also the Litteris et Artibus. Article edited to add this info. --bonadea contributions talk 11:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recieving Litteris et Artibus is possibly the highest award you can achive within arts and culture in Sweden. /FredrikT (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Swedish royal award should, in my view, confer sufficient notability. Vanamonde (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you look at the subject's body of work in the theater and in film on the Swedish Wiki page, that should be enough for inclusion. Not even sure how this was even nominated for deletion. ExRat (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. and per Litteris et Artibus. BabbaQ (talk) 19:51, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Packer (software)[edit]

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

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}}.

While this page was undeleted by @Georgewilliamherbert in April of 2015, I feel that the concerns he mentioned on the talk page (most especially notability) have not been adequately addressed since then. The only sources are tied to the developers (HashiCorp), and I was unable to find much in the way of potential sources that weren't.

My first thought would be a redirect to either Vagrant, as Packer is apparently closely tied to it functionality, or HashiCorp, perhaps with the addition there of a section on it. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 05:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't got more reliable sources, but my consulting company has 3 top-25 web company clients using it now, so it's somewhat popular... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're a top 10 Bank and we're using it. This is serious stuff. The debate needs to be clearer about why this is better than puppet and chef, because the debate often ends there. This page is essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.159.130.230 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we" and which top 10 bank are you? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:45, 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 00:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This seems to be widely used. It is an important part of "infrastructure as code". Covered in this book: [10] But that book *is* written by a Hashicorp employee. --146.140.210.15 (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what sort of clearer consensus we're going to get; reliable sources by WP standards in the DevOps tools area are difficult to find. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:19, 12 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 delete (G4) by Iridescent. (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 10:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalika Chanda[edit]

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

Non notable actress, article's sources barely mention her at all. I also doubt she has suddenly become notable in the month since the previous AfD discussion. Yintan 12:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Yintan:: Since the article has been re-created so soon after the last AfD, it might be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G4 if it is bascially the same as the version that deleted. Re-created articles really only require a new AfD when they differ substantially from previous deleted versions. Having said that, another option to deletion might be to suggest userfication to the article's creator. That way the creator can (if they want to) continue to work on a draft version of the article and search for better sources. The draft can then be submitted via WP:AFC once it's ready for review. If the AfC reviewers will provide comments on things that need to be improve and will only approve the draft if they feel its ready for the article namespace. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Marchjuly: Hi. I can't see the deleted version so I can't compare the two. As far as the creator goes, he appears to be determined to recreate again and again. [11],[12] Yintan 06:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is basically the same as before and just keeps being recreated after it is deleted, then you could ask for the tile to be salted. FWIW, I asked the admin who deleted the first time around at User talk:MBisanz#Kamalika Chanda whether this version qualifies for speedy deletion, but haven't received a response yet. You can try asking for assistance at WP:AN if you want, explaining what the creator has said about recreating the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concluded: Keep the article: Added several sources, and established notability. Keep the Article Kamalika Chanda.Riisen (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen: AfD does not work that way. You may continue to work on the article and improve it by adding sources and content, but the discussion remains open until an administrator reviews it to determine whether a consensus has been reached on what should be done about the article. Since you're new to Wikipedia, you probably should read WP:AFD#Contributing to AfD discussions and familiarize yourself with how an AfD works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told you, I have re created the article, you dont teach me wikipedia, with new sources, new content, new references, and notable filmography. now will you stop reverting my edits in this page again, could you please do that, could you could you please stop reverting my edits on this page. pleaseRiisen (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted by reply at User talk:Marchjuly#STOP for reference, but just want to add that you should try to be careful not edit the talk page posts of other editors like you did to mine here. Accidents like this may happen, but others might feel it's being done on purpose if accidents start to happen too many times. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen: And you can stop the accusations of racism and other personal attacks too. Thanks. Yintan 09:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Riisen: Be civil. Do not make baseless accusations. Who is that "someone" that prevents or prevented you from participating in this discussion? Last one, how is "you" related to subject of the article? Anup [Talk] 08:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm going to G4 it. Anup [Talk] 08:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Yintan 09:39, 9 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) 08:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onur Albayrak[edit]

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

The footballer never played a match in a fully professional league, hence fails WP:NFOOTY. There is no evidence he passes WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Joseph2302 09:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence he's played in the Danish Superliga Seasider91 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:43, 10 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 merge to Banks dory. Consensus is to merge Gloucester dory, Swampscott dory and Cape Ann dory into Banks dory.

The opinions that this is the wrong venue and this should have been a talk page merge discussion have merit, but then discussion of the merge did continue here anyways and I find that it has sufficient consensus. The strongest argument is that all three sub-articles only have one single source, and it is the same exact book source for all three, making it almost impossible to write about them as truly distinct topics. However, I absolutely would not oppose further talk page discussion about the merge that may result in different consensus about keeping the topic separate or not (assuming more sourcing is uncovered). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gloucester dory[edit]

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

This is a slightly less accurate -or, rather, less complete - reduplication of the Cape Ann dory article. This is the same place, same boat. Merge? Delete? Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Anmccaff (talk) 16:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, wrong venue. You cannot delete a subject easily found in books. And Wikipedia:Merging may be handled only by these who are versed in the subject. By the way, how do you know it is "same boat"? Can you cite sources which say that? If yes, nobody prevents you from merging. If not, hold your horses. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "Gloucester dory" cited in that book is likely a different boat, it would appear. "Gloucester dory" can refer to near-shore surfboats used in fishing -the subject of this article and the Cape Ann dory article- but also to Gloucester-built dories regardless of design, to dories carried by Gloucester fishing boats, etc. It's an ambiguous term, which is another good reason to use "Cape Ann", which is a little more specific. Anmccaff (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply is a confirmation that this is wrong venue. And you did not answer my questions. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. This article duplicates, completely, another; yin or t'other should go. There should only be one article about any given subject.

Next, you responded to this afd by removing sources material from one of the articles; both are mainly based on Gardener's dory book, but the material also shows quite accessibly in Chapelle's American Small Sailing Craft, Their Design, Development, and Construction, around page 90, if memory serves. This is something which anyone with even a moderate awareness of the subject is familiar with; I'd assumed that anyone with an opinion here would either be acquainted with the subject, or make themselves so, not just dredge up something on Google.

Next, let me again point out the mere publication doesn't indicate notability, especially for publishers who specialize in narrow subjects, which are Arcadia's bread-and-butter. Anmccaff (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "by removing sources material from one of the articles" the source cited speaks about Johnson sailing dory, but does not say it was Cape Ann dory. Please provide another reference. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you removed two separate blocks of information. Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And...? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: "This article duplicates, completely," - completely false statement, even for a person with morderate awareness of English language. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good to see the acknowledgement, but, no, it is not false. It's ambiguous; I'd expect you choose the meaningful interpretation. The two articles cover exactly the same subject: small beach dories common to a particular area. There is complete overlap of the subjects as the articles are written; that need not have been the case, since it's trivially easy to get examples of "Gloucester dory' referring to other designs built at or hailing from Gloucester. {[User:Anmccaff|Anmccaff]] (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Covering the same object" is not the same as "duplicate, completely". Subjects may overlap, but text may be 100% different. You have yet to prove that the subjects overlap, citing reliable sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your opinion these are the same, bearing in mind that Gloucester, Massachusetts is on Cape Ann, but you have yet to provide the sources which say so. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...aside from Chapelle, you mean? Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite Chapelle who says they are the same. I did look through the book, section about dories, but failed to find this. I admit this could have been stated indirectly and I missed it. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re "publication doesn't indicate notability <etc>" - I fail to comprehend your argument; narrow subjects are quite fit for encyclopedia, as long as they are covered in specialized publications. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Almost every high school student in some areas is reliably pictured in a school yearbook, yet this clearly makes neither them, or their class year, or their school, automatically notable. The mere fact that something could get printed is no guarantee of notability. Many of Arcadia's publications exemplify this. Anmccaff (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poor comparison. Yearbooks are not reliable sources for wikipedia. If you doubt that Arcadia publications are reliable sources, you may argue your point in WP:RSN. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far its only two people which have commented. Perhaps we need more commenters? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Water transport-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banks dory as appears to be a variation of said boat. Nordic Nightfury 12:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging -all- the dory articles might make sense, but the shore-fishing dories preceded the bankers by at least three decades, and more likely about a century. Again, see Chapelle, American Small &cet, who flavours the later date, and Gardner, who favors the earlier. Anmccaff (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again wrong venue. There are rules about non-trivial merging requests: you have to put merge tag on both pages: source and target, so that all interested editors are notified. If you tag only some obscure page, the editors of the more general and (more edited) page will not even see the merge request. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...were someone starting an actual merge discussion, that might be relevant. Anmccaff (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue (as per WP:DP, move to a talk page) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: This AfD was IMO improperly relisted as there was no argument for deletion and the request to close was not processed. Please do so now. Unscintillating (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL#5 does give content forks as a potential reason for deletion, and I am inclined to treat a duplication as the same thing. So actually there was a valid deletion reason in the opening post. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell me how did you figure out it is a "duplication of the same thing"? Did you actually look into the two articles? The nominator failed to answer me this simple question despite long chat. BTW DEL#5 specifically says unless merge/redirect is appropriate. Clearly, in this esoteric topic a random wikipedian cannot make an educated decision unless the article text is essentially the same, which is obviously not the case. Hence expert opinions are required, hence wrong venue. Staszek Lem (talk)

Don't assume when you did not hear an answer that the error was entirely in transmission. Anyone reading the references in the articles, Gardner and Chapelle, can see that they are discussing the same boat, an oar-and-sail nearshore dory somewhat similar in hull shape to a banker. This need not have been the case; there was a power boat commercially named the "Cape Ann Dory" that is essentially s Swampscott dory with a good deal of decking made early in the 20th century, and several US government fisheries reports that use "Cape Ann dory" to refer to bankers in the 19th century.

Next, there is nothing at all "esoteric" about the topic, at least in many places.

Finally, a "random wikipedian" would, I hope, have the good sense to either hold his tongue, or read the references, before weighing in. Anmccaff (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please write a plain answer: which reference directly say that the two are the same. You say: "Anyone reading the references in the articles, Gardner and Chapelle, can see ..." - Wikipedians' inferences are called original research and not allowed in articles. Just cite the piece which says they are the same, and done with it. Resorting to personal insults usually means that there are no better arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 13 days without relist - if not commented would've closed as no consensus. Final relist Nordic Nightfury 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 06:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dory, and merge Cape Ann dory and Swampscott dory there as well. All are only sourced to one mention in a book, which is not enough to support an article. Sandstein 11:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is the right venue I disagree with saying that this is the wrong venue. Often, AfD is the only place where an article will receive attention. Content forks are a valid reason for deletion: whether it is indeed a content fork or not is something to be debated during the AfD. Speedy closing AfDs like these actually stop the discussion and adds to the bureaucracy. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is confusing speedy close, which ends a discussion; with wrong venue, which moves a discussion. If you want a centralized discussion place for redirect/merge/notability discussions, it is my understanding that the community has already agreed to implement this forum. AfD is for WP:Deletion policy, not content disputes. Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banks dory ~~Dory~~ (Updated per below). The content is short, sourced to a single book and it is ripe for merging. Merging also helps to improve the target page here. I guess the other articles can be merged as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notified some interested parties as well [13], [14], [15]. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to a merge to Banks dory --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banks dory. Merge also Swampscott dory and Cape Ann dory to Banks dory. These are just variants of the Banks dory and don't warrant separate articles. On the other hand, the Banks dory, associated with fishing on or near the Grand Banks, is an iconic boat and does warrant its own article. The dust kicked up above is just obscuring the issue. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That which is obscuring the discussion above is the discussion above, which is in the wrong venue. AfD volunteers are not subject matter experts (SME) on all topics on Wikipedia. A merge result out of AfD is not binding for several other reasons. Wikipedia doesn't work well by bands of editors declaring that somebody somewhere sometime should do some content work as required by the band of editors. Administrators are not bound into subsequent content disputes just because they closed an AfD. Are you volunteering to do this merge? If so, then I will consider withdrawing my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a possible content fork and AfD is the place to discuss it. In fact AfD is the place where articles are brought so that it receives attention from the community and we decide what to do with it. As you saw here, I managed to find someone who is familiar with the topic in general. Getting even this little bit of attention helps and each of this is a baby step to improving the quality of the encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old argument that has the form that the end justifies the means. However, closer analysis indicates that the problem with quality on Wikipedia is not due to insufficient AfD discussions. If this were true, we'd have robots bringing articles to AfD to increase the workload for the ARS. It doesn't take much analysis to conclude that improving articles just before they are deleted does not improve the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I understand you. Are you asserting that "this article was not a content fork in any way" and that "this should be kept as it is"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I asserted neither of those things. AfD is for worthless articles, where the breaking of the assumption of good faith to the content contributors has a foundation in policy. If you want to have redirect/merge/notability discussions, either follow existing WP:Deletion policy, which says to use talk pages and if necessary, RfC; or move forward with the centralized discussion forum for such. Redirect/merge/notability discussions are covered as a part of WP:Editing policy, and do not require administrator tools. Unscintillating (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re merging to Banks dory, authoritative sources, e.g. Chapelle and Gardner, unambiguously note that that the grand banks dory is a variant of the coastal boats, not the other way round. Anmccaff (talk) 05:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, coastal prototypes were developed first (or rather, beach dories – the Banks dory is still essentially a coastal boat). It's almost obvious that that would be the case. But it was the Banks dory during its classic period that most represented the idea of the developed dory in the public mind. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But an encyclopedia, or something trying to impersonate one, does not base itself on public impressions, except in areas which the public is reasonably expert. The banks dory, for all it lit'rary and artistic prominance, was a blind alley of dory development. The Swampscott boats and the Cape Anns, in the sense that 'Cape Ann" is used here, are not.

A real problem is that so many of the terms used are inherently ambiguous, expecially seen over time. A Cape Ann is a small oar-and-sail beach dory with washboards....except when it's a banks dory, or a decked powerboat actually based on the Swampscott/Nahant boats. Anmccaff (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree with you, though I wouldn't characterise the Banks dory as a "blind alley". Rather, it represents the heyday of the dory. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nahh. The Bankers proper were obsolescent by the early 1900s, which is when the Boston Power Dories came into their own. The western rapids dories -cousins of both the Cape Anns, and the lumberman's bateau- are still made and still the dominant solution in some waters. The bankers lasted only so long as life was cheap, frankly. A swampscott boat could be made to nest, too, but not at the price. Anmccaff (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient evidence that it is notable; whether it is to be handled as a variant of other similar notable boats is not a question for discussion here. Is there any unambiguous academic source saying there is no significant difference. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"there is sufficient evidence" that what, exactly, is notable? The article is about a boat which is precisely the same boat seen in "Cape Ann dory." do you feel it so extremely notable that it requires two separate articles, or are you suggesting we nuke the other? Anmccaff (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop repeating "they are the same boat" without proof. I asked you several times here already: Please write a plain answer: which reference directly say that the two are the same. You say: "Anyone reading the references in the articles, Gardner and Chapelle, can see ..." - Wikipedians' inferences are called original research and not allowed in articles. Just cite the piece which says they are the same, and done with it. 02:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fear of trains. Sandstein 08:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siderodromophobia[edit]

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

Fails WP:MEDRS. No significant coverage beyond phobia content spammers. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Cursory search shows it to be a real thing, though, better sourcing and CE needed. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources idnicate this is not a medical issue, therefore MEDRS does not apply here. Nonetheless, it needs to meet other criteria such as GNG, and I feel it does. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete zero MEDRS sources - no reviews in pubmed; none in PsyNet (can't save searches there). The sources in the article used to support descriptions are not reliable for content about health. just another pseudopychnology fun with greek term. Delete and salt like the rest. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the bulk of sources discussing it are not health-related this seems more a social concept than medical, although I agree that the article needs to be revamped in roder to reflect that. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the sections and content are "Symptoms", "Complications," and "treatment". that is WP:Biomedical information. I get it that you are confused about what is biomedical content and that it appears that you are beginning a campaign to try to redefine what is biomedical in WP per this and this and things you have written elsewhere in WP. You are going to run into a very solid brick wall in that effort - especially since you seem to have no clear concept of what is and is not medical, and to the extent you start promoting pseudoscience you will face discretionary sanctions; i just provided you notice of them. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that according to your logic each page under category fear constitutes a medical article? Pwolit iets (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. There are actual specific phobias from which people seriously suffer, and they are treated that way by the medical/psych professions and here in WP. There are also a bunch of "fun with greek" bullshit "phobias' that people like to create/coin and make long lists of and pass around the internet. Read the last paragraph of the lead of List of phobias Jytdog (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if I added a sentence about "complications" of alarmism. Would that article suddenly become medical? Pwolit iets (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:POINT. I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and Redirect to list of phobias with the rest of them. Not seeing enough here for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. No indication of significance or reliable sources. -- Begoon 06:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to specific phobias. While I "like" these type of articles, the pretty clear consensus in the recent past of AfD has been to delete or redirect such articles. This case is even more extreme an example of a non-notable phobia; there is virtually no peer-reviewed literature about the topic. We've hashed this subject out, let's move on. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with current sources plus sources such as this one in-depth and mentions in books.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the first is a gee-whiz trivia article about words related to trains (no one denies the trivia value of "fun with greek"); the second uses the term in passing in the subtitle and never goes back to discuss "fear of trains". Neither is MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, everything that is not MEDRS is simply trivia, so you'll delete 95% of the encyclopedia if its not MEDRS. Puh-leeze. Read the general notability guideline which says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Coverage? Check. Reliable sources? Check. Independent of the subject? Check. => Keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability. Setting aside the MEDRS issue, I see no nontrivial coverage in reliable sources sufficient to meet GNG. As for the sources provided by Tomwsulcer: they are both mere passing mentions; additionally, the piece in The Week that claims siderodromophobia was once synonymous with a type of injury strains credibility, and the second barely mentions the subject at all. Rebb ing 19:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Fear of trains if the concept is notable (otherwise delete). Duh! There are sources for the -phobia word, but most of those are using it with the intent to be pedantic. If it -phobia word was found to be MEDRS-worthy, I would advocate to keep as the technical word for the concept (painkiller is a redirect), but since it has not stuck, move to the common name.

Of course, it will lose a few sentences like "stuffophobia is the fear of stuff", but that is kind of the point. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to move in the text. You are very welcome to write the article Fear of trains, based on no-fool sources. In any case, it is a good idea to painlessly kill off lots of tautological "stuffophobia" articles by creating Fear of stuff pages. By the way, "Fear of things" gives 1,8 million google hits. Time to write the article! :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist - not done so in 13 days. Nordic Nightfury 06:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 06:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fear of trains. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article is actually pretty well done. am ok with redirect. I don't know that this is such a generalizable solution; turns out that "fear of trains" is a thing in the psychoanalytic Freudian tradition, stemming from the man himself. Pyschoanalysis itself is considered mostly pseuodscience today but hey, there is indeed an article at fear of trains that is ok in my view. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 8 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) 14:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 East Carolina University protests[edit]

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

No notability of the topic of this article. It's just a loose collection of current events that are mostly only relevant to one school's own community or student-body. The main theme seems to be that this is all notable because it's related to a notable movement (BLM), which fails two ways: it is not supported by WP:RS to be related other than by timing (WP:SYNTH at best), and notability is not inheritable regardless. This article is instead one of several recent attempts by now two SPAs try to shoehorn various components of this set of protests into many articles, every time failing to ride the coatstrings of notability that does not independently exist (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Lives Matter protests at colleges and universities). WP is not a school newspaper. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news, I doubt this run of the mill protest will ever meet GNG Seasider91 (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as even the Governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory commented on the protests. ^[1] --NotablePeopleFan (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Governor commented on a protest. That can't be WP:SYNTHesized into the topic of the article at hand. DMacks (talk) 10:43, 10 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. Sandstein 08:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Langton's ant[edit]

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

This impressive-looking but mostly-meaningless buzzword salad fails WP:NOR. Its only reference is to an article that defines the original (unextended) Langton's ant, which is name-dropped at the start of the article and then largely ignored. Except for that one brief mention of something else, the article is entirely unsourced and unsourceable. Past discussions have suggested redirecting or merging to the Langton's ant article, but there is nothing here of value to save and it would be a mistake to even mention this in the Langton's ant article. Delete this gobbledegook. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I may not understand something, but it looks like this article does not describe anything different than the original Langton's ant.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, just tacked on to Langton's ant to look good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as original research with nothing worth salvaging from it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not adding anything to Langton's ant and incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 9 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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David SK Lee[edit]

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

This page had been previously been successfully WP:PRODded but has since been recreated shortly after hence why I am bringing this up for AfD as I am doubtful recreated article that was deleted via PROD are eligible for WP:CSD.

The PROD rationale by the proposer SwisterTwister as quoted: "Essentially such an advertisement, it's inches away from a G11, the fact it not only to specifics about his career information and what his business and activities involve (note the company link professionally taken "showcase style" photos are immediately listed early in the article); none of this actually establishes anything close at all for both independent notability and substance with a non-PR basis; the article is actually only ever sourced 2 times by major news sources and that's simply for his car collections."

My rationale to support the proposal: "I only heard of this guy when his name get mentioned on YouTube car videos a number of times but this PROD is hardly surprising given the promotional nature of this edit and reeks of paid editing given the professional look of the photographs. Excluding his car collections (which I cover later), the edits about him as a businessman makes him out to be just another run-of-the-mill businessman with a overglorified Linkedin profile called Wikipedia not helped that coverage about him in business is minimal. A huge portion of sources here is dedicated to his car collections but then there are plenty of people, notable or not, who have collections like that and do get invited to prestigious shows but then some of those are notable for other things that paid for their hobbies or have a high profile public museum." Donnie Park (talk) 05:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as the nomination statement clearly shows what my PROD was and it was actually then simply boldly removed by an SPA, yet that actually only emphasizes the PR intentions and actions, nothing else apart from that therefore Delete. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Despite a pretty good attempt to promote, the subject is not notable. I don't see any evidence that he is a notable Ferrari collector. Note that references such as [16] and [17] in "Forbes/sites" are not considered reliable for the purpose of notability. This Huffpost "blog" is similar - user submitted content which is published with hardly any editorial oversight. (I remember the paid editor who was writing stuff on HuffPost blogs and then using them as sources). The rest of the mentions are passing/brief mentions or in questionable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me fix this before you delete. Please and thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.153.190.17 (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Person is rich, but that doesn't make one notable, and he actually doesn't seem to have done anything to make him notable. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 14 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) 08:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua M. Schwartz[edit]

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

Delete and Salt may be needed considering there's still nothing actually substantial since the first AfD and there's nothing to suggest it should be expected, searches are not finding anything which is unsurprising and there's certainly nothing significant here. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero coverage actually of him that I could find. (Lots of other people called "Joshua M. Schwartz", though.) - David Gerard (talk) 08:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- utterly unremarkable. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 14 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) 08:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farswal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that it's WP:NOTABLE. 1st AfD closed only because of lack of response - hopefully we can resolve this issue now. Boleyn (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing I can find about this is extremely similar text from another wiki, and it is referenced there, but equally terse. It clearly fails WP:GNG. As an aside, @Boleyn:, why not make a single AfD disussion for each of these articles, or use WP:PROD? FalconK (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response' Falcon Kirtaran, I avoid using prod when sources are likely to be mainly in a language I can't read. As for bundling them, it's an idea, but a minority of these articles will (and have been) prove notable at AfD - I think judging them separately is fairest, especially as they are different and by many different creators. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcomes of other similar AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya, etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 13 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. The consensus after discussion and better sourcing seems to be to keep. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dogar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD closed as no consensus only because it failed to attract any comments - hopefully we can get it resolved this time. Boleyn (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources whatsoever, and no indication of notability. Brianga (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Convert to a surname article and keep~~ as there are enough people with the name to meet the criteria of WP:APONOTE. Uanfala (talk) 07:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sitush's findings. – Uanfala (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally I would move Dogar (disambiguation) to the main page, which now contains those. Boleyn (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the brevity of the list, this isn't a bad idea in itself. However, we normally keep surname lists and dab pages separate per WP:NAMELIST and, in view of the association that normally exists between a surname and the name of a community, verifiable information about the community (notable or not) is relevant in the surname article. Uanfala (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Arguing to keep an article, that has zero references, and tagged since 2014, with "notable or not" because it has some unclear association between a surname and the name of a community, is insane. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, genealogy portal, publisher of original thought (such as "defining terms"), or indiscriminate collection of information. The article fails WP:NOTABILITY, even WP:GNG, as well as WP:VERIFIABILITY. These are reasons we don't "keep" articles regardless of some remote connection to something else. Otr500 (talk)
- Note: There is the article, Dagar that shows this as an alternate name, along with "Dangar" and "Digrana". That article actually only has one reference that states, "the Panchal Luhar have small exogamous divisions (got), such as Dagar ...". Even with that there just is not enough verifiable information (notability) to keep the article. Otr500 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see
- Chaudhuri, B. B. (2008). Peasant History of Late Pre-colonial and Colonial India. Vol. 8. Pearson Education India. pp. 194–195. ISBN 978-8-13171-688-5.
- Bharucha, Rustom (2006). "The Past in the Present". In Menon, Dilip M. (ed.). Cultural History of Modern India. Berghahn Books. p. 76. ISBN 978-8-18735-825-1.
- E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936. BRILL. 1987. p. 114. ISBN 978-9-00408-265-6.
- Singh, Chetan (1988). "Centre and Periphery in the Mughal State: The Case of Seventeenth-Century Panjab". Modern Asian Studies. 22 (2): 299–318. JSTOR 312624. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
- Gaeffke, Peter (April 1991). "Reviewed Work: Hīr Vāriṡ Śāh, poème panjabi du XVIIIe siècle: Introduction, translittération, traduction et commentaire. Tome I, strophes 1 à 110 by Denis Matringe". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 111 (2): 408–409. doi:10.2307/604050. JSTOR 604050. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

They're nothing much in detail but these alone are sufficient to form a referenced stub: Muslim, pastoralists, lost out in the pecking order with the rise of other clans, clan endogamy, disparaged in an well-known Punjabi story, etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is an easy keep. I am rewriting the article with sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Since this is the chosen article to keep we can merge as uncontested the alternates Dugar, Dagur clan, and Dagar. Otr500 (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. There are plenty of castes/clans that share the same or similar names but which are distinct communities. Some of that is because of the gotra system, naming after rishis etc, meaning that one clan name is used by multiple castes. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a novel idea: When a name, especially one with alternate spellings, is used across multiple platforms, in this case communities, areas, castes, or whatever, and has separate articles, this can be solved by using sections in one article. This prevents a lot of stubby-stub articles, that are just variations in spelling, resulting in a better singular article. This is especially important when several articles show the same alternate spellings, that can not be argued as not being confusing, and a solution. I have been informed that there is no improvements that can be made but someone would have to logically explain why this would not be a workable solution. Otr500 (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a novel idea. It does occasionally happen, particularly for clans of the Jats and Rajputs, but in most cases the things are so distinct that they rightly deserve their own article. - Sitush (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bit a sarcasm and I totally agree that if "something is so distinct" it should have a separate article. However, this is impossible to assert when an article has zero references, is a one line less than stubby-stub, and is no more than a dictionary type entry, or what appears to me a push to move Wikipedia into the genealogy business. Something "distinct" is considered WP:NOTABLE by reliable independent sources, and not just having a place on Wikipedia. If there is not enough coverage merge and cover the different aspects in sections of a single article. That just makes too much sense to me. Otr500 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't merge something that is unverifiable. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh! and now we make progress. We can not do anything with subjects or material that is not verifiable. "IF" a subject or content is not verifiable it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia. Dab pages do not need citations because the target article is subjected to policies and guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't dab something that isn't verifiable either. You are not going to "win" this one (you do seem to be treating it as a sort of battle), so I suggest you change your !vote here given the sourcing now in the article and that you move on per the note recently left for you by someone else on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Sitush. Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 17 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) 08:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lancom Systems GmbH[edit]

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

My clearly stated PROD mass-removed by driveby-IP with the sole basis of "sources existing" but they never actually acknowledged the concerns listed or at least attempted to improve the article, since my searches clearly found nothing and this is the only name the company uses as shown by the company website, so even German news media searches are not finding anything. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, I couldn't find anything myself either - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete Another Corporate SPAM Wikiepdia facing these days in abundance! Light2021 (talk) 14:25, 14 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) 08:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miana (tribe)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, agtx 04:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find nothing reliable that discusses this community. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per outcomes of other similar AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barhiya, etc. The nom might want to list several at one time. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:42, 11 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 is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Lessons of History[edit]

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 08:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 09:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A short classic of popular history, written by the Durants near the end of their work on The Story of Civilization. Basic searches show lots of coverage. GScholar shows this book is cited, at least, in hundreds of other works. This was first published in 1968 so digging is required to find online reviews, but some examples of coverage from the time of its publication and since: [18][19][20][21][22] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Based on Arxiloxos's research the book passes BKCRIT but it's insufficiently developed as-is. I'd be willing to rework this in my userspace but I don't want to see this article stay as-is. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ Pls see below // Original comment: as requested above. Currently, the article is a self-cited essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to Arxiloxos for finding coverage in reliable sources. It is surprising that a book published in 1968 is being reviewed in 2015. The Time magazine review seals the deal for me. Will and Ariel Durant won a Pulitzer Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. I believe that there is a strong presumption of notability for all of their books. AfD is not cleanup. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to be sufficiently notable, but I hope that somebody would improve the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it could use some expanding, but is notable. It is a condensed essay format book from a larger series work by the two authors (who are Pulitzer Prize winners for historical work). Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand if possible. The book is a contribution by notable authors to a subject of very long, and ongoing, interest. Nihil novi (talk) 17:13, 8 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan McGrath[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a mountaineer, who has a potentially valid claim of notability but isn't sourced even close to well enough to support it properly -- of the three sources here, two are primary ones that cannot carry notability at all, and the one that is real media coverage just makes her a WP:BLP1E. As always, a person like this is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she could qualify for an article if she could be shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, but one piece of media coverage doesn't accomplish that. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of what little is written here is copied verbatim from her own website - it's a vanity bio, and a potential technical WP:COPYVIO. I think WP:PSEUDO and WP:1E control here - she's covered in WP:RS for two things. One is a single rescue she made, and the other is a time she was rescued. I, too, have been rescued from my doom by use of a satellite phone. FalconK (talk) 05:49, 7 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:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steffi Sidney[edit]

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

Despite her role in Rebel Without a Cause, she doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. I suspect her obituaries in the Los Angeles Times and Variety[23] were more out of respect to her father, Hollywood columnist Sidney Skolsky. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:56, 25 September 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, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 7 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. While this is borderline, there was no support for a delete beyond the nominator and the commenters either voted keep or noted the addition of sources. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harper and the Moths[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Has some coverage, but not sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added much more references that should help with the decision. Kishmael 21:23, 03 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is not great; I've tagged it as a stub due to the lack of content. However, the band has certainly received some coverage in reliable sources. FalconK (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - This article is a little disorganized and needs some expansion to properly identify with the group, but that does not mean the subject does not have some significant coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:00, 7 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frasers Property[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable property development company. All information about the company itself in the article is sourced to an "Our Story" page on the company's website. There is one section on a definitely notable building the company developed (One Central Park). However, the sources provided for that section are a link to a press release by a partner development company that worked on the building, and a link to an award the building received. The award appears to be the only legitimately third party coverage provided in the article and the award is for the building, not the company (which is not mentioned in the award article). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep lots of coverage in gnews search including in mainstream Australian press. meets WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I see their name a lot, but what specific sources were you thinking of that contain any WP:CORPDEPTH? - David Gerard (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sure: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it seems some of the above articles are subscription only but I could view them via gnews search. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

urbandeveloper piece reads like a reprinted press release, others are corporate ownership coverage ... do the News Corp sources talk about the company in terms other than who owns which bits of what? -David Gerard (talk) 08:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

some of them talk about the company itself eg its plans for expansion and ownership structure rather than sites they're developing. LibStar (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good, good ... they're a huge company, the sort of thing you'd expect to have been talked about - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. The only notability is inherited from (One Central Park), which has it's own article. Wayne 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a mjor copany, and one central park just the most recent of their properties. Needs expansion. (that al lthe refs given come from that building is just a matter of the article being incomplete.) DGG ( talk ) 01:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Relies heavily on primary sources as written, but subject appears notable. Tag article with a need for better citations. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. It appears to be notable, based on what it built, but I'd prefer better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Chaltiel[edit]

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

Delete. Biographical article, tagged for notability since 2011 with no substantive improvement, of a person whose main claim of notability is that he was an unsuccessful candidate for mayor. This is not a claim that passes WP:NPOL, but there's very little substance here to claim that he's notable for anything else -- and the sourcing here is all either deadlinked or local coverage about his death. This is not good enough to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 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 03:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete candidates for mayor are almost never notable for such alone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not at all convincing of notability as a politician or businessman. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 10 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Safran[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced article, written far more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article, of a lawyer with no particularly strong claim to passing WP:LAWYERS. The referencing here is based entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage in media, so she has no strong claim to passing WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertising for an unconvincing lawyer whose attention and news would only come from any known clients and affiliates, therefore as the article shows these concerns quite noticeably, there's nothing suggesting otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary source coverage about her. Everything is press releases or otherwise non-independent sources. agtx 15:38, 11 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) 08:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indiepay[edit]

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

Essentially actually speedy A7 and G11 material but it may be ridiculously removed with the "sponsors" claims but all of this is in fact an advertisement, focusing with only things the company would say itself, and my own searches are then finding nothing at all aside from a few mere mentions. Certainly nothing for actual independent notability and substance. PROD was in fact boldly and ridiculously removed with the basis of "new article, let it improve" yet no improvements have happened and this was an in fact from the start, not only that the user was "Indiepay" but a second account came later, this was also then nominated for speedy deletion but also removed. SwisterTwister talk 03:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are not providing any significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- purely spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is near speedy material. There's hardly anything available in RS. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:08, 10 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. Can be userfied on request (by an admin other than me; I don't do that.) Sandstein 08:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maternal Health in Texas[edit]

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

This article is extremely non-neutral and is really an opinion piece rather than a formal neutral encyclopedic article. It cannot readily be fixed. Blowing it up and stubbifying it would be acceptable in place of deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur this is simply a journal report and certainly not an encyclopedia article, nor will it be because it's not a subject to suggest enough for its own article, instead better at an overall health article. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems very unencyclopedic. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it is a good topic, but the writing has NPOV problems and the topic is already covered in Maternal health. No reason why we need a WP:CFORK.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While we do have a few "Maternal health in (country)" articles, we don't cover sub-national regions and even if we did this article is nowhere near acceptable for various reasons already mentioned in other opinions above. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please move to draft space This article is being developed during a class in the Wikipedia Education Program. I talked with the instructor in the course who asked if this might be moved to draft space for reflection. Could this deletion discussion be halted and this made a draft? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As Blue Rasberry mentioned, this is a student article that shouldn't have been created in mainspace. While it has issues in its current form, I'd like to userfy and work with Land and the student to try to get it into something acceptable. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:14, 10 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. Sandstein 11:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Pincus-Roth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable journo. While there is a lot of sources there are no independent reliable sources that have any depth of coverage about him. The awards are not major. Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) is a failed proposal so should not be used. His citation numbers are trivial.
Last afd was tainted by a bad faithed nomination and sock puppetry. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The finding from the previous nomination discussion was accurate. What makes you think that his citation numbers are "trivial"? They were not trivial a year ago and have only increased since then. This entry does have room for improvement (citation formatting is the first thing I see) but this clearly meets standards for notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Bangabandhu (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to hide anything about authoring the article. I don't have any conflict of interest. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following the scholar link above we can see that his highest cited work Avenue Q has bee cited 3 times. Trivial. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar is primarily for academic or scholarly works and isn't a fair measure for a journalist, especially not an entertainment journalist. Washington Post authors on popular topics like Pat Goss, Rachel Elson, Steven Goff or even Donna Britt don't have ANY scholar citations, but we wouldn't question their notability. Those journos, like Pincus-Roth, are well represented in a Google search or a news search and are notable. Bangabandhu (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it was you that linked to google scholar to claim he was widely cited [30]. Trying to have it both ways? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a journalist he's got a lot of citations, but as an author, he has one book. To clarify (in case there's a 3rd nomination?), here's a screenshot from the second page of his Google Scholar citations. Google Scholar focuses on aggregating citations for books, not newspaper articles, but you can see his writing is widely cited, even if Google News would be a better way to demonstrate this. Now, if you want to take out that he's an author from the lede, I think that's reasonable and would support the change. But there shouldn't be any question about his notability. Bangabandhu (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to meet WP:JOURNALIST based on positions held, scope of work, and authorship of Avenue Q. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What positions held satisfy WP:JOURNALIST? What is special about the scope of his work? How hoes authorship of a non notable unviewed book help? duffbeerforme (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep -- I don't see what has changed since the last AfD, where the article was kept. The tone is somewhat neutral, and the subject appears notable, per positions held and awards received. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What positions held? Good jobs but nothing notable. What awards? None are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:06, 10 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 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TV Noise[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Little coverage in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like that I could use help with improving this article and making it more notable, because it still could not pass WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Could you guys help out please? Thank you.@Alsee:@Ss112:@Earflaps:@Infopage100:@Jax 0677: - XPanettaa (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has twice before been reached that TV Noise does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. I'm not sure how more editors searching for reliable sources that don't exist will increase this band's notability. Winning a Grammy or having a few songs chart would certainly help. Until then, this is kind of like flogging a dead horse. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XPanettaa, it would be more useful if you screened topis for notability before posting a page. It saves a lot of time for everyone involved. Earflaps (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - This page is really notable. TV Noise is really notable. They collaborated with Martin Garrix and other big DJs. It takes time to make pages perfect. So us Wikipedians will get around this page really soon. But for now, just keep this page. P.s., this has got to be the poorest written comment by me.

Infopage100 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Hey @XPanettaa:, I haven't done much for TV Noise yet, but I did update the writing under the career table quite a bit. I will gather a bunch of references for this article soon. It's just been taking a little while because I've been mainly focusing on Mike Hawkins (musician). I think you asked me to edit that page earlier, and I certainly did. Though I'm not finished with that project either unfortunately. I'm not even halfway finished with anything yet. So check out Hawkins and TV Noise to see the progress, and let me know what you think on this talk page or on my own, User talk:Infopage100. Anyways, I wish you good luck with your articles, and I'm utterly exhausted, so goodnight.

Infopage100 (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello @XPanettaa:, I have now done everything that I can for TV Noise, and have no more information to contribute to this page. Therefore this means that I will no longer be editing the following page. Tomorrow I will be busy updating an article that a friend of mine requested my help for, as I have already promised to do so days prior. If you wish to help you may. Thank you and good luck with the page.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim to notability. Add that to the over the top promotion, the over the top excessive refspamming, the undue weight given to almost everything, the fan cruft, the lack of any real coverage WP:GNG. Delete. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot find one article about their songs which is not clearly a routine song announcement / press release. They seem to have done one minor interview in a non-notable magazine (Empty Lighthouse) but otherwise there is no coverage - no reviews, no charts. Simply, not notable. Nik thestunned 12:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hello fellow Wikipedians:

@Alsee:, @Ss112:, @Infopage100:, @TheMagnificentist:, @Earflaps:, @Jax 0677:, and anybody else, I need your help, because this article is still not notable enough. Could you guys help out please? This has to be notable, just like Mike Hawkins (musician) which has been expanded by Infopage100 before and after Jo-Jo Eumerus closes the deletion discussion. XPanettaa (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply@XPanettaa: - I will try to look for charts that will help, as I have tried few weeks back after the 2nd nomination. I will try again, but please do not take offense to my deletion nomination of the article you created, Henry Fong by attempting to redirect pages I created like you did on Mako (DJ duo), Gryffin (DJ) and Ookay. If they were done because of me not responding to your ping on 19th October then I am sorry because I did not see this until now or I might have been distracted. Please do not take it personally, I hope we can remain good Wikipedians without personally attempting to sabotage each other's edits. - TheMagnificentist (talk) 07:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VOTESTACKING @Drmies:? Karst (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe, sure, a bit. XP is asking for help on the article, though we can guess what it means. I assume that the readers who were pinged will have found out by now that XPanettaa is indef-blocked. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @XPanettaa:, be bold! --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @XPanettaa:, ummm.... I'll try to do something. I really don't know what else I can do. Sorry. Infopage100 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication that the duo meet the criteria under WP:MUSIC. No charts and the sourcing is all WP:PRIMARY. Karst (talk) 12:51, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukari Mononobe[edit]

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

An "original character" with no indication that this has notability. I can find nothing on this in Japanese and searches in English only find a mention or two on personal sites. Michitaro (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criteria A11. This looks like a character made up by the article creator. I've added the A11 tag to the article. Calathan (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy deletion nomination was declined, but I still think this should be deleted as non-notable. Calathan (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Non-notable fan fiction character [31] [32] inspired by the characteristics and names of two Touhou project characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. ~Mable (chat) 12:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have declined the A11 speedy nomination, because WP:CSD#A11 requires that the article plainly indicates that the subject was invented by the article author or someone personally known to them. Suspicion is not enough. However, delete as non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've redone the deletion request as a WP:A7 no indication of importance - web content. The only place where it appears is on the author's page and a user-generated wikia entry for fan fiction characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also wanted to nominate this for speedy deletion, but I couldn't see a category that fit "unnotable fictional character," so I went through AfD. Michitaro (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that speedy deletion nomination. Fictional characters are not one of the subjects covered by A7. Merely having information about a subject available on the Internet does not make it "web content" (if it did, almost everything would qualify as web content). Web content in this sense is things like web sites, browser games, blogs, etc., that are inherently something you access with a web browser. Calathan (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is technically an idea from a blog, but that's fine if it doesn't fit A7. Still gets a delete. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eh, I'm ambivalent about the speedies, but yeah, I see nothing either, so a SNOW close wouldn't be a bad idea--by my count, we now have 7 deletes and 0 keeps, including the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 8 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 Higher-Order Perl. Discounting the subject's own views per WP:COI, we have only one "weak keep" and a "keep or merge" on the keep side, plus a "redirect" and four "delete" opinions on the other. A redirect probably accommodates most views as it allows selective merging to the book article, subject to consensus among non-COI editors. Sandstein 09:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jason Dominus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article written by the subject of the article (and heavily edited by them). Subject has marginal notability, all of it stemming from a book he authored and self published sources. Google hits are not an indicator since the subject of the article has done his homework on generating link engine spam. COI edits throughout, and reads like a book advertisement. Article should be deleted or merged and redirected to Higher-Order Perl. Questionable sources. Octoberwoodland (talk) 23:35, 6 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 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May in fact be notable, though this article isn't good. If not kept, redirect to Higher-Order Perl, which is actually noteworthy in the field - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the subject of the article, which has survived three previous deletion discussions with strong consensus for “keep”. The proposal to delete claims that I wrote the article and edited it heavily; both of these claims are easily seen to be false. Wikipedia's policy on notability of authors says “The person has created … a significant or well-known work. Such work must have been the primary subject … of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” Higher-Order Perl meets this standard. —Mark Dominus (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That aside, the subject may well qualify as noteworthy and the article one to keep. May be a fixer-upper rather than a delete. And COI doesn't mean you can't touch the article about yourself, it means that you shouldn't beyond minor details (a can vs should issue). I mean, Dominus should definitely avoid editing the article, but it's incorrect to say it's forbidden - David Gerard (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very constructive and helpful suggestion. It's current sources are not secondary sources, and it still seems to make the most sense to redirect the bio to the article with the book because there is no context for his bio and the content does not meet standards as you pointed out earlier. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard: I think a review of my edits to the article will show that I have only edited it to make the most minor changes. For example, this is my most recent edit, in March. But if there is a concern about my edits to the article, this is not the correct forum for dealing with them. The procedure at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest should be followed. —Mark Dominus (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now about the notability of Mark Dominus. COI, if it exists, is a distraction. Agricola44 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, although it would be best if someone else sort of rewrote the article, it is extremely poorly written. I would stay stick to coding, Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete computer programming language figure who lacks coverage to pass GNG. The inclusion criteria back in 2005 were a lot more lenient than they are today, which is why Wikipedia is plagued by thousands of articles on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nominator seems to be a single purpose account, per WP:SPA, and has made few or no edits unrelated to this particular AfD nomination. Starting an AfD with their third edit to WP (after user page and user talk page creation) is not typical behavior for a new user. --Mark viking (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I edit all the time with my IP address, but you have to have an account to list an Afd. Have someone change Wikimedia to allow IP editors to create Afd without an account. At any rate, there is nothing sinister about it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to be seen as an SPA attack account, then not attacking would probably be a good start - David Gerard (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is now about the notability of Mark Dominus. Motivations of nom are a distraction. Agricola44 (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I see no justification at all for the accusation of attacking, unless you mean the very mild incivility of "vanity article", which would be best stricken. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In defense of David's assertion, there were, at the time David wrote that, a couple of passages by Octoberwoodland that could be considered more aggressive. But to Octoberwoodland's credit, they subsequently deleted those passages. At this point, I am content to assume good faith regarding Octoberwoodland's intentions and put the SPA concern to rest. --Mark viking (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a little distracting to be debating something other than the subject of this debate. Agricola44 (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some basic searching shows lots of web presence (twitter, personal sites, YouTubes, etc), but nothing that would clinch GNG in terms of archival sources. Indeed, the bibliography seems mostly to be web stuff, biosketches, conference presentations (broken link), etc. Awards, like the "Larry Wall Award for Practical Utility" are not notable. As far as I can tell, Mr. Dominus is a peripheral actor within the larger Perl world, rather than a notable computer scientist or language developer per se. The main claim for the article seems to be his book Higher-Order Perl. Most languages have their "Bibles" (like Kernighan and Ritchie for "C"), but Higher-Order Perl does not seem to be one of these for Perl. Noticed nom's mention of redirecting, but the book's notability seems debatable. I think JPL's above assessment is correct: this is a legacy article from the early days of WP when notability considerations were much lower than they are now. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge selectively to Higher-Order Perl. MJD's main claim to notability is as the author of Higher order Perl and as a columnist of The Perl Journal. He was a prominent although not central figure in the Perl world. Based on the book, he seems to meet notability per WP:AUTHOR, but reasonable people could disagree on this. What is clear is that there is basic verifiable information out there on the man, and per our WP policies of WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, it is preferable to preserve verifiable information rather than delete it. Hence if consensus does not develop for keeping the article, merging basic facts relevant to the HOP article, his most notable achievement, would be the best policy-based course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to HOP would be fine, unless that article would be at risk too. From what I can tell, Programming Perl is the "Bible" here. Presuming that Perl is like other modern languages in that there are dozens, or probably hundreds of dedicated mass-market books and technical texts, it's not clear to me that HOP itself is even notable. FWIW, I don't think being a columnist at The Perl Journal carries any notability weight. As far as I can tell, that seems to have been a short-lived trade publication/newsletter that went defunct about 15 years ago (all 19 issues seem to be here). I wonder if the following would be better. The main article on Perl is certainly permanent. Many of the people in the "perl box" listed at the bottom of this article are mentioned prominently or cited in that article. Dominus is not (though the HOP book is post-scripted as "further reading"). Perhaps this content should be redirected there, which would certainly satisfy ATD and PRESERVE. Agricola44 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

A book doesn't need to be a "bible" to be notable; it just needs to satisfy the notability thresholds of WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. HOP seems to do that, although folks are welcome to to bring it to AfD if they disagree. The Perl Journal was the main and dominant journal in the Perl world at the time, and being a columnist for the journal definitely contributed to the notability of MJD in the field, if not WP. At any rate, I think we should get not distracted by what-if scenarios and just concentrate on the article at hand. If keep does not become the consensus, a merge or redirect to the Perl article would be OK by me. But from what I have seen of the biographical sources for MJD, every one of them mentions HOP. A merge or redirect to Higher-Order Perl would seem a better fit and it would be easier to manage due weight in the merge. --Mark viking (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HOP probably satisfies WP:NBOOK, though I'm not sure. The point is that, if it were of "Bible status", it might render Dominus himself notable per se. It's not, so it doesn't. In digging a little further, I think it's fair to say he was a very visible advocate/promoter/teacher of Perl and he contributed some important modules, but AUTHOR (probably the best guideline match) would require him to be "regarded as an important figure", which he is not, or for HOP to be "a significant or well-known work", which it is not. BTW: The Perl Journal was not a peer-reviewed archival journal. It was a newsletter/trade-periodical that published a whole 19 issues. I think we're trouble if we feel that being a columnist for this caliber of publication renders notability. Agricola44 (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this discussion had been about a person whose only claim to fame was to have written a minor book about a pretty minor tool used in any other industry then the article would have been laughed out of court. Why do we persist in applying different standards to some topics, such as the software industry, than we do to other topics? Isn't it time for Wikipedia to grow up from its geeky past and take a broader view of what is notable in an encyclopedia about the whole world? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:24, 11 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CKYZ-FM[edit]

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON article about a radio station which began airing a test signal in 2016, but which is not properly sourceable as having officially launched its permanent signal as of today. Per WP:NMEDIA, however, a radio station does not get an article as long as it's still only planned or testing -- the time for an article is once reliable sources can be added which confirm that the station has officially and permanently taken to the airwaves, not the moment it gets a license or starts testing. (The testing phase can, for example, reveal unforeseen problems, such as interference with another station or with radio communication infrastructure at the airport — see CHNO-FM if you don't believe me on that one — which complicate or postpone or completely kibosh the real launch.) No prejudice against recreation if and when it's properly sourceable as having permanently launched, but radio stations that are still only in the testing phase don't get advance articles on Wikipedia anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going by just WP:GNG this radio station fails the notability criteria completly. A short news article on a local news website for its possible launch is definitely not enough. Apart from that there is absolutly nothing on them out there, except for some appearances in a few radio station listings. Its not even clear if this radio station has actually started broadcasting. Since there are no sources on them out there, this article will never have more content than CKYZ-FM is a radio station which exists. There is no direct SNG for radio stations, imo the failure at WP:GNG alone should be a sufficent argument to delete the article. There is an essay at WP:NMEDIA. It says: Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. There is no evidence that any of that is true for this station. Therefore I think the article should be deleted. Of course if they time meet the notability criteria at some future point, it can be recreated. Dead Mary (talk) 09:07, 7 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Fougere[edit]

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

Delete. Single-sourced BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor and non-winning mayoral candidate in a city not large enough to carry its city councillors over WP:NPOL. As always, city councillors are not automatically granted a presumption of notability just because they exist -- outside the very narrow range of internationally famous global cities, a city councillor gets a Wikipedia article only if she can be extremely well-sourced as more than just locally notable for more than just the fact of existing as a city councillor. But with just one source here, which is local coverage in the context of announcing her unsuccessful run for mayor, that standard has not been satisfied. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too low a level politician to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a largely unsourced vanity page on a non-notable politician. An unacceptable BLP article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 14 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golden fox footwear[edit]

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

Apparent promotional page. Literally all sources are bad, a basic WP:BEFORE turned up no evidence of RS coverage of the company. Created by SPA who makes many promotional edits concerning footwear. David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable secondary sources discussing the company or their products. And Golden Fox Footwear was deleted for lack of significance in August, with the deleting admin unable to find any sources, either. --bonadea contributions talk 05:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was created by ... the same SPA! As far as I can tell they have zero non-promotional edits - David Gerard (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing information followed by also trivial and unconvincing information, there are some thin claims of significance but it's still so thin, there seriously cannot be any actual substance, there's no inherited notability, as always, from anyone or anything. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- blatantly promotional page based on dubious, promotional sources. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard. Articles like this are a good evidence why WP:CSD G4 should be extended to apply to PRODded spam. Reyk _YO! 07:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' -- obvious spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:44, 10 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:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qazvin Tramway[edit]

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

No sources. No verifiability. Probably WP:TOOSOON as well. Smartyllama (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot find any notable sources relating to the tramway. Possible WP:HOAX? Nordic Nightfury 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 7 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Blanton[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as an unelected candidate for office. This is not an automatic pass of WP:NPOL; if you cannot show and source credible evidence that he was already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy, then he must win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability because election. But literally all we have for sourcing here is primary sources, like his own campaign site, his own press releases about his own campaign, and his profile on the website of a directly affiliated organization. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if major party nominees for US congress were notable, which our guidelines say they are not, this would not extend to 3rd party candidates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TNT this one; badly written and sourced vanity page of a BLP; and an unremarkable person to boot. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:POLITICIAN. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:25, 12 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Royganj M.L High School[edit]

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

I could find zero independent sources to prove that the high school actually exists. High schools are generally kept but this particular case, I couldn't find anything on the web. This user has uploaded some pictures at commons claiming to be the school but the images doesn't demonstrate the existence of the school. Jim Carter 11:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jim Carter 11:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Benefit of the doubt (AGF). The photo is quite clearly identifiable as a school building in tropical or sub-tropical Asia, it will be unlikely that all schools in developing countries have web sites or even much written about them on he Internet (they certainly don't here in Thailand which is nevertheless more developed than some parts of Europe). High School articles, in so far as they are not blatantly promotional, are hardly toxic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Here the question is not if it is promotional or toxic, I cleaned the article myself. But the question is if the article is a hoax (or coined) or not. I challenge that the article is a hoax and I don't know how anyone can prove me wrong. The pictures are not a solid proof of existence, I can take similar pictures and claim it as school. It is not even a source that can prove that they are school. In India every old building looks like that school. I could find zero sources on the web or anywhere. AGF is not a solid argument when the existence of the subject is in question. As WP:OUTCOMES even mentions that: "high schools are usually kept *except* when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Jim Carter 16:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even I would have been positive if I could have found the name of the school on Google Maps, any school not even in Google Map whereas other schools around that location are listed. I'm skeptic about the subject's existence. Jim Carter 16:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a deeper look, even the existence of this "Royganj" village is disputed, I could only find the Upazila on the map. Jim Carter 16:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jim. The idea behind my comment is 'AGF'. That means not automatically assuming it not to exist and definitely not going so far as to assume it to be a hoax. I appreciate your concern but I don't think we can suggest that every unverifiable article is an invention, particularly when they come from regions known not to be as technically developed as others. I think the likelihood of a hoax to be extremely slim. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Chris. I don't believe that we keep unverifiable articles on Wikipedia. One of the fundamental policy is verifiability. I would never have tagged it for AfD in the first place if I have found at least a single source identifying the school. But that is not the case, AGF is a guideline and V, RS are all long standing policies. I don;t know how I can make an exception in this particular case. Jim Carter 09:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DEL8 for lack of notability under NSCHOOLS, the relevant guideline, as there is absolutely no coverage of the subject.
A fundamental principle of notability is that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability"; furthermore, "[n]o 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 result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity . . . ." Also, "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." The community has clearly and recently expressed its unwillingness to relax these standards in response to systemic biases, such as a lack of coverage for subjects in developing countries. Wikipedia is not a directory, even of harmless subjects like schools. Rebb ing 16:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that high schools of confirmed existence are considered notable on a per se basis, like populated places, highways, mountains, and rivers.~~Carrite (talk) 01:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists". This is a case where zero sources exist, so the action consistent with long-standing consensus would be to delete. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will yield the point and get out of the way on this one. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:VERIFY, with no sources provided in the article or found during the course of this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge -Chandaikona M.L High School is the actual high school which is located in Raiganj Upazila. This name may be a variation of spelling Raiganj.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a legitimate school, there may be Bengali language references. I found the corresponding article in the Bengali Wikipedia by looking at the images in commmons. I'm also not sure if this is the same school as Chandaikona M.L High School mentioned above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note at User:Moheen Reeyad's talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:17, 15 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:SOFTDELETE due to minimal participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sujod[edit]

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

I have been trying to clean up the villages in southern Lebanon for the last couple of months, but I have still *no* idea as to where this place is located. I cannot find anything even remotely similar mentioned in http://www.localiban.org/rubrique505.html The only source talks about "the mountain of Sujod." If nobody can find this on a map, then I suggest we delete it. Huldra (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there is a Sejoud in Jezzine District, located here...is that it? If so, it should be moved to that name Huldra (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything either. The only reference I found used this wikipedia page as it's reference! Mattximus (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:14, 7 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 List of tz database time zones. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

America/Indiana/Indianapolis[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

My research failed to turn up significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, and as such all of these articles appear to fail the general notability guideline. I am unable to find a more applicable notability policy or precedent for either keeping or deleting articles over time zone database locations, though many other such articles exist, so this is somewhat of a test case. Since they appear to fail the GNG, I recommend deletion or else redirection to either Time in Indiana or their geographic localities (such as Indianapolis, Indiana). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list of these tz database time zones is at, appropriately, List of tz database time zones. I'm not sure what to do with the individual listings. The tz database is unquestionably notable. The list of zones it defines, also not a problem. Individual content for each zone? I'm not sure. It seems unlikely that they'll have specific, GNG-passing discussions on their own. But on the other hand, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and surely this is a gazetteer function? For the record, there's this big list of Indiana-specific ones because the tz database tracks regions that have had timezone changes during the Unix epoch, and timezone management in Indiana is a mess. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, I totally agree that the database and list of individual zones are notable. I'm just not convinced that the individual zones should have articles themselves (usually). There does not appear (at least with these zones) to be enough depth of coverage to justify each having their own article; what little coverage there is seems to be fleeting at best, and not enough to produce more than a stub or start class article at best. The gazetteer function can be accomplished by a better formatting of the main list article, with the coordinates and associated location for each zone being linked and the list being broken down into more manageable, sortable sections by region (America, Europe, Asia, etc). I would not be opposed to redirecting the zone articles to either "Time in _____" (in this case Time in Indiana), the associated location for the zone, or to the main list of zones in place of deleting the pages if consensus is that retaining the pages would enhance the gazetteer function. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite an interesting find, Ks0stm. :) I think the proposal to redirect these to articles like Time in Indiana sounds like a good solution, but at least some of these time zones cover multiple states. How do we handle that? A Train^talk 21:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a Magical Christmastime World, I'd like to support retention of these tz time zone articles, to be honest, along with the specific history of why they're each necessary. That would often provide some overlap with (for example) Time in Indiana, but they're not precisely the same thing. I'm simply unconvinced that we can construct such an article without original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tz database time zones. Given the lack of secondary sources I think the nominator's reasoning is sound, but if there's a parent article why don't we just redirect there instead of deleting? Like Squeamish Ossifrage, I would also love for all of these articles to be fleshed out with time zone ephemera but I guess we're not going to get that. :) A Train^talk 16:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All to List of tz database time zones. Having a separate page for each obscure entry is overkill and WP:UNDUE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:44, 15 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. Consensus is clearly against deletion (not one commenter supported the nominator on that argument), and so may be interpreted as a "keep" result in that sense, but editors are divided beyond that. Please continue to discuss through normal channels whether to keep, merge the content, or just redirect. See WP:ATD. postdlf (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The page is nothing but listcruft that lacks any real assertion of significance. Mentioning someone in a song isn't in itself a really noteworthy trait anyway. Since this is not a place for excessive listings per WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it's best to just delete. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this list does prove something - that Presley's influence over music is so profoundly vast that artists of all different genres, from country to hip hop to rock to indie pop, have referenced him in numerous times in their music, and that seventy years after his commercial peak, he is still a huge part of Western culture. P.S. I promise that if this list is left alone that I will add numerous refernces to it! User:MagicatthemovieS 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Cultural impact of Elvis Presley which discusses that. Anything on his influence over music is best placed either there or in his main bio. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion before and it was decided that it should be left alone. Shouldn't we defer to that decision? User:MagicatthemovieS 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. First of all, that ended in "no consensus" rather than an outright "keep", though that wouldn't prevent future AFD nominations regardless. Secondly, just because something was kept before doesn't necessarily mean it should still be kept. Things can change over time, and that discussion was from 2008. Article standards have substantially changed since then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cultural impact of Elvis Presley Also keep the history and link to it on the talk page so if someone wants to recreate this list on a more appropriate website they can. There's also a list of "Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley" which was nominated for deletion in 2007 and closed as no consensus that should also be redirected. BigGuy88 (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list is kind of like articles like Cultural depictions of Cleopatra or The Devil in popular culture or any __ in popular culture article only more focused. I fail too see why it needs to be deleted while the aforementioned articles have not been.

That's irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF, which states you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I don't like it" but this kind of list is standard practice on WP.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this "standard practice"? I can't really think of any similar pages like it. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about "List of songs about...", for instance List of songs about the environment. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never saw that before. In any case, whether other things exist (or don't exist) is a moot point per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that the "other stuff exists" policy had some effect on AfD discussions, but I have never seen it to.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To make my view more clear: I would like to see a lot less popular culture, original research lists. However I do watch the AfD's and it is very rare when one gets deleted. Obviously lots of people like them and others are not offended, and WP policy is not taken that literally or seriously as, in fact, I would like. Deleting this one would either be an unfair exception or else a start of a long and difficult campaign to get rid of the rest. Take your pick. Sounds like a big waste of time to me. Not my job to change people's attitudes.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff existing (or not existing) is NOT a valid reason in itself for maintaining this, in case that point wasn't already clear. Just because other pages are mistakenly kept doesn't mean this one should be. It also doesn't make sense to vote "keep" on something you feel should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Songs about Presley are discussed by several sources, including George Plasketes' Images of Elvis Presley in American Culture, 1977-1997: The Mystery Terrain. --Michig (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point; just because something is discussed doesn't automatically mean it is noteworthy. Referencing a person within songs isn't exactly in itself a significant trait. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Songs referencing Elvis Presley is a bit tenuous for a list, but there are a significant number about Elvis Presley, which is, in your terms, a significant trait. I would note that a lot of the songs listed here as being 'about' Presley really are not, but if you brush away the chaff there's enough there for a decent list. --Michig (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I never said or even suggested that being about Elvis was significant. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you did. I just stated my opinion that it is significant. --Michig (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cultural impact of Elvis Presley. Right now the list looks like a link farm for the performers of the songs rather than being about the songs themselves. The article is largely WP:OR, i.e. who determines whether the song is "About" Presley vs being "Substantive reference" vs "Nominal reference"? Most of the content does not have citations so it's also the case of WP:V not being met. With a redirect, anything useful could be pulled from the article history.

If the article is kept, the list should be culled to only those songs that have articles themselves. Otherwise, this is an indiscriminate collection of information and is not suitable for inclusion. The list would also need to be checked for OR, for example, the White_Privilege_II article mentions Presley exactly once. Overall, I think a redirect would be preferable as this looks to be more hassle than it's worth. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. The problem is that many more people will care deeply about their favorite song than about some WP policy. Once again: "I don't like it." Thoughtmonkey (talk) 17:13, 10 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Omar Bin Fareed[edit]

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

Little indication of notability. Full of WP:PEACOCK language and written as a puff piece. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ahmed Omar Bin Fareed is a notable figure, activist and writer in South Yemen and he is one of the leaders of the Southern Movement.
Here are several sources to confirm his kidnapping, imprisoning and release by the Yemeni security forces as a political prisoner and also as a writer.
http://www.yemenpost.net/47/LocalNews/20082.htm
http://womenpress.org/oldsite/news_details.php?lng=english&sid=1372
http://protectionline.org/2007/09/04/brigadier-nasser-al-nouba-nasser-al-%C2%91awlaqi-%C2%91abbas-al-%C2%91assal-arrested/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/12/15/name-unity/yemeni-governments-brutal-response-southern-movement-protests
Here's also some of his published articles in Arabic
http://www.sadaaden.uk/read-news/314393
http://adengd.net/news/214646/#.V-W9M_ArLIU
Here are some TV Network interviews
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPl2beVDZvw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waHEJZT3enQ
Please keep the page up because there are always people searching to find information about the leaders of the Southern Movement and South Yemeni writers and activists.EDQ 23:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernhirak (talk • contribs)

Comment You created the article and are the main contributor. You're not exactly unbiased.

Delete fluffy article about a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We tried our best not to be biased. We will be grateful if you can please help us improve the page. Tell us what to remove or what to add. Thank you EDQ 23:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernhirak (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is about leader of the peaceful southern mobility movement. Marginalized people shouldn't be marginalized on wiki too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdigrass (talk • contribs) 06:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: above vote is by a WP:SPA who is a possible WP:SOCK of the page creator. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not gonna lie. I was motivated to create a WP account when I saw the issue on this pages a few days ago, when I saw it was relisted I felt obliged to vote to keep since I know about the person and the southern movement and also help edit, but I'm not a WP:SOCK. I've been following the war in Yemen and understand the South Yemen history and people. Nerdigrass (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Even if this person was notable, the state of the article is 100% unacceptable with external links and dubious content. If someone comes along willing to prove notability and create an article with RS, then all the power to them. Delete for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 14 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 merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marid (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in that [33] and [34] both cover Marids that appear to be more influenced by D&D's instantiation of them, rather than what we see at Marid, the more traditional Islamic mythological creature, even though neither mentions D&D explicitly. Failing that, merging per BOZ would be acceptable. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus reached about whether to merge or keep yet Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. There are no reliable, independent sources that talk about the marid specifically as it is used in Dungeons & Dragons. An apparent influence is not enough; we'd need reliable sources explicitly talking about the influence of the D&D description of the marid. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 04:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So why not merge to Marid instead? See, that's the rub here--there are two perfectly valid merge targets: the list of game creatures, or the base article for the mythological creature on which the fictional element is based. Jclemens (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. There's nothing to merge as the article appears to be mostly a self-cited essay. I don't believe that Marid is a suitable target for the merge, as this content would be trivia ("cruft") for that article and could be deleted. Better to redirect to an in-universe target. Anything useful can be picked up from the article history.— Preceding unsigned comment added by K.e.coffman (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Jclemens's argument, as far as I can see, is essentially that it looks like the subject may have been influential in some way, but that we have no evidence of this. That doesn't seem like good evidence of notability. If we had a third party source commenting on its influence, then yes; currently, no. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters and /or Marid as editors may deem appropriate, but on its own the article does not establish notability through third-party coverage. Sandstein 08:02, 15 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 Miss Tourism International. Definitively consensus on removal (although the article is not "unambiguous advertising" so not G11 eligible), using a redirect so that people can merge stuff if there is anything to merge. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2012[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner was already added in the main article, Miss Tourism International. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam on an non notable event. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this can be reliably sourced, then merging with Miss Tourism International seems the most sensible thing to do. Otherwise redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 16:55, 10 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. No consensus on a redirect but there is support for removal. If people want content to merge (and no, primary sources can in fact be used as sources) they can ask at WP:REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism International 2013[edit]

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

The pageant edition has no significant coverage to warrant the inclusion of the details indicated in this article. The winner was already added in the main article, Miss Tourism International. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam on an non notable event. I requested a speedy deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this can be reliably sourced, then merging with Miss Tourism International seems the most sensible thing to do. Otherwise redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 16:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge if sourceable. There is no point in a redirect, because anyone looking would find the main article. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge as the article does not list any secondary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 10 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.

^ http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article106695287.html

[1] ttp://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article106695287.html

[1]