Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 October	10 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. Tone 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lexyl Travel Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are either local, brief mentions, or from sources that are not reliable. Content says that it is owned by HotelPlanner.com which had its article deleted in 2013 and 2015 in variations of its name. CNMall41 (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, none of that REFBOMB is convincing - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable travel agency. Yintan 12:58, 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. The only explicit keep argument is not giving any reason why the article is supposed to meet notability criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bougenvilla[edit]

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

Was recently discussed at AfD. Sources in the article seem to be more of list-type information rather than reviews or the like. Can't find other sources. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of WP:NMUSIC, no good sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:54, 10 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) 13:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XPanettaa, it is (usually) inappropriate to ping people to deletion discussions. It could be considered WP:CANVASSing. Alsee (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can be, but requests for help are a good thing if the intent is to get help, not get votes. As nom, if this can be improved, I'd be thrilled. I only nominated because I don't think it can. Hobit (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete OR~~ redirect - @XPanettaa:, WP:CANVASS. Truth be told, even I cannot find any good sources for this musician. Redirect with history to Spinnin'_Records#Artists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was previously nominated for speedy deletion but an anonymous editor removed the template without explanation. Since then, a claim of notability has appeared in the article, so while it no longer qualifies for speedy deletion, it still doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article should stay because it can beasily be updated. Infopage100 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Infopage100:, WP:BURDEN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a pretty bogus reason to keep. All articles on Wikipedia "can easily be updated." That isn't a criterion for inclusion of a topic. So far, nobody has explained what criteria in WP:MUSICBIO are met by the subject of this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Ok yeah, it's pretty bogus. But why do we have to delete everything??? By the way, I meant to say, "easily" not "(b)easily." I was pretty tired. Infopage100 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Infopage100:, please SIGN your posts, and see WP:DEL-REASON. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Jax 0677:, SORRY that I forgot to sign a comment. Still though, I hate deleting everything. I know why pages get put up on Wikipedia's deleting craiglist; I just wish they wouldn't. It was more like a cry, not a question Infopage100 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We delete things because it's the policy to do so, and policies such as Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information have evolved and agreed upon by community consensus, and guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO help us adhere to those policies. If you want to change any policies or guidelines on Wikipedia, you can start forming a consensus to change them, but deletion discussion isn't the venue for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that "spammers mean we can't have nice things". I too find it infuriating re: music articles, and yet preferable to the alternative - David Gerard (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @XPanettaa:, I'll try to see if I can sqeeze in some time to contribute to this page. Sorry for taking so long. :/ Infopage100 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Out of 24 footnotes in the article, more than half of them are to their songs' sales pages on iTunes — which is not a reliable source that can carry notability in a Wikipedia article — and none of the remaining nine are any better, being entirely to blogs and WP:ROUTINE concert listings and more primary sources like SoundCloud. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a musical group into Wikipedia. Deletion does not mean that a band can never have an article, because an article can be recreated again if and when somebody can do better on substance and sourcing than the first time — but no, we don't keep articles just because they might eventually be improvable. We have an extremely high rate of people who try to misuse Wikipedia as a public relations venue, and that can't be tolerated or accepted — if the article doesn't already meet our inclusion and sourcing standards now, it can't stay. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 16 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. Tone 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason P. Downs[edit]

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

Assistant professor not at a major research university. Does not pass WP:PROF. agtx 22:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assistant professors are rarely notable, more often associate professors are notable. We would at least need an indication of impact for Downs work and we lack that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly not convincing for both the applicable notabilities of professors and authors, the article contains nothing else to suggest his works have been significant. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to suggest Downs passes the professor test and I suspect it's an autobiography. WP:TOOSOON. Joe Roe (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tiny GS cites: WP:Too soon. Ineptly written BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors usually do not yet have enough impact for notability and this one does not appear to be an exception. Six publications in Google scholar with an h-index of 4 is, as Xxanthippe says, too soon for WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, article is effectively a résumé and apparently also self-authored. Blythwood (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has had some mentions in excellent sources for his work on a missing link, but probably not enough to pass the PROF test. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 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 speedy delete. Whether a redirect is necessary or desirable needs wider discussionthan this as it potentially impacts a number of similar articles. This is the wrong forum for this discussion procedurally as well. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven McKagen[edit]

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

Was voted to be deleted via previous AfD. Unsure why it's been restored moments later. Simione001 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not been restored, it is a redirect to the section in the national team article that specifically discusses him. You've raised this in the wrong forum, you should go to RfD to discuss. Fenix down (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was deleted so it must have been restored. The consensus was to delete not redirect. You should have discussed it first before just going ahead and creating it. I have no idea how to discuss an RfD. Simione001 (talk) 22:50, 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. Tone 15:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Reyes[edit]

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

No evidence of notability provided, The references quoted are vague in the extreme and would need access to a deposit library to check. Even with the refs it is difficult to see where notability would lie. She is an artist. She exhibits which is true of the great majority of artists but it isn't notability. The SPA that created the article has made only two edits.Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as after watching this, I'm still not finding any actual museum collections, and there's nothing to suggest there would be actual independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not just failing WP:GNG, but it looks like the article is a copyvio from the biography on the artist's own website with minor changes (see http://www.reyes.ch/biography.html). Richard3120 (talk) 20:13, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Timotheou[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played in a fully professional league. Simione001 (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from the lead of A-League - "The A-League is a professional men's soccer league run by Football Federation Australia (FFA). At the top of the Australian league system, it is the country's primary competition for the sport.". Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - That's true however the subject has not played a game in the A-League. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG per this. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails notability criteria. Yintan 13:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so to clarify, although Timotheou has been signed by A-League team Sydney FC for two years, see here, as he hasn't actually played any games with them yet, it is a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple: That's right. WP:NFOOTBALL requires a footballer to have played in match in a fully pro league or for a senior national team. If and when Timotheou makes his debut, he will meet the guideline, but he doesn't right now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:49, 10 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) 15:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (thanks Sir Sputnik for the clarification), doesnt meet WP:NFOOTY, a gsearch doesnt yield enough appropriate sources to meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:48, 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. Tone 15:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lokolingoy[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played in a fully professional league. Simione001 (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from the lead of A-League - "The A-League is a professional men's soccer league run by Football Federation Australia (FFA). At the top of the Australian league system, it is the country's primary competition for the sport.". Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - That's true however the subject has not played a game in the A-League. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG per this. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. This is the only article that I could find that might be deemed significant non-routine coverage. Fenix down (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so like Bai Antoniou, it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 10 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) 15:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:FOOTY or WP:GNG, has not played professionally, gsearch does not yield useable sources to bolster notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:49, 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. Tone 15:14, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bai Antoniou[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played in a fully professional league. Simione001 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from the lead of A-League - "The A-League is a professional men's soccer league run by Football Federation Australia (FFA). At the top of the Australian league system, it is the country's primary competition for the sport.". Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - That's true however the subject has not played a game in the A-League. Simione001 (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG per this. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so to clarify, having played with Sydney FC in a final (he also assisted in the SFC's 3rd goal) of the FFA Cup is not enough (even though the FFA Cup is "the main national soccer knockout cup competition in Australia"), and being signed by Sydney FC to the A-League squad, see here also isn't, as he hasn't actually played any games with them yet, so it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes. I don't think he was in the final though, that report looks like the final score from a round of 32 match according to the main body of the text. The appearance was against a team from a non-FPL, so he doesn't fulfill NFOOTY. You'll need to show wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The game was a first-round proper game of the 2016 FFA Cup against Wollongong Wolves FC, a team who play in National Premier Leagues NSW, a non-FPL league. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:15, 11 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) 15:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thanks for the explanation from above editors especially Fenix down, doesnt meet WP:NFOOTY per above or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up football related articles only. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:49, 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. Sandstein 18:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

War Metal (Cobalt album)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I failed to find anything reliable in English about this album. If you find Norwegian sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 08:59, 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) 05:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Whitten[edit]

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

Politicians who once hoped and campaigned for being mayor are not at all inherited notability from those events themselves alone, my own searches are mirroring this by simply finding trivial coverage about the campaign events, I'll actually note this was started in 2012, presumably part of his then-campaign, and this was in fact then accepted with all of this information last year, therefore it shows he's literally not known for anything else, and the fact this article was accepted with the same 2012-set facts, shows he's not notable for any capacities. Another note is that because it seems this Draft was started as part of his political and PR campaign, the article itself is formatted like an advertisement. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy is so far below notable there is nothing close to a question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. I'm not against a userfication. He's gotten some media attention, but not in any ongoing and significant way. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too much of one event. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:09, 16 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 Article deleted as hoax by User:JzG, recreated an hour later and deleted and salted by me, article creator and sock indefinitely blocked. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GomerOzDubar[edit]

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

Can't find any indication this person meets our criteria of notability. I've deleted a YouTube video because it was a copyvio upload of a Reuters video by someone called MollyLive. I note that the image of this person was uploaded by "Author GomerOzDubar" but when you click on GomerOzDubar you actually get the creator of this article. A number of the links don't work, we don't use forums as sources, etc. Doug Weller talk 20:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And even if he was notable, the article is one big WP:ORIGINALSYN. Also, six months ago he was still a rapper called Pullout.[1] I'm beginning to think hoax. Yintan 21:20, 9 Octob er 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Mohiuddin Ahmed[edit]

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

Failed member of parliament candidate with nothing to suggest notability Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not to mention an abundance of prose problems and POV. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious vanity autobiography. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 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. There are substantial arguments by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Guy 1890 and Wikiuser20102011 that the topic meets WP:GNG which have not been contested (a mere "fails Notability" is not enough). Concerns about promotional tone should be handled by editing the article, merely having an article is not usually considered an advertisement under policy. Seems also like the article might need a cleanup of its current sources and links (Otr500) so I'll tag it for cleanup. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Molinari[edit]

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

Molinari is not even close to notable for being a pornagraphic film actress. There is not even a claim that she was ever nominated for an award. Considering the industry gives out awards like candy, this means she was if possible negatively impactful. Her having her standing as Miss New Hampshire USA revoked is worth noting in the article on Miss New Hampshire USA, but not enough to justify a stand alone article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition the claim that she passes GNG put forward in the previous discussion was not at all based on sources. the sources in the article are majority to non-reliable databses that seek to catalogue anyone involved in the creation of pornographic films, which is not at all a goal in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a notability guideline, and sources that engage in indiscriminate inclusion of everything can not be cited towards meeting that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Molinari meets the GNG. She had three separate instances of news coverage -- when she became Miss New Hampshire, when her title was taken away, and years later when she went into porn. The newspaper column used as an article reference is a good example of the sort of coverage she received, and provides more reliable substantive information than the sources in a typical porn bio here do, by a wide margin. The fact that early 1990s print coverage in not generally accessible online does not make it less substantive or reliable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- nn as a state-level pageant winner, as has been established at the long string of related AfDs, the vast majority of which closed as delete or redirect. There was a minority of articles where subject went on to have more or less notable career, and these were kept. In this case, the subject's career in adult entertainment is not notable. So if you are adding 0 + 0, you are still getting a zero.

Also note that the subject's career in porn is under a different (stage) name. For BLP considerations, with very marginal notability such as this, I suggest that the article be deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC. Montanabw^(talk) 07:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. According to her long defunct official website, in addition to being on A Current Affair, she was also on Hard Copy, Inside Edition and Entertainment Tonight as well as Geraldo, Donahue, Riki (sic) Lake, Howard Stern, MTV when she was Miss Nude World.1 As for her using another name for being in porn, two different reliable sources cited in the article have connected Molinari and Alex Taylor. In her porn movie Dethroned, which was based on the events of her life and her being stripped of her title for being a stripper, they list all her titles won on the back of the boxcover, so she obviously wasn't trying to totally disconnect the two. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ADVERTISING. This poor "faded glory" biography isn't even about the subject but the screen name not even mentioned in the lead. The reference to the advertising list of porn movies is just that and biographical information is used from internet archived "WayBackMachine" to get vague information. Vivid Entertainment, courtesy of Internet Adult Film Database, is not even a reliable source. All "porn stars" have some story of how they got there, usually promoted by the entertainment company selling the subjects "goods" so there is a conflict of interest using these as a source. All porn stars don't need an article on Wikipedia, certainly not one where her only Early life biographical information is "She moved to Hampton, New Hampshire from South America with her parents when she was in seventh grade.". A WP:BLP is mandated by several Wikipedia criteria to be held to a higher standard, and this just simply doesn't even have a medium standard. The reference that she was on A Current Affair is simply a newspaper article with passing mention stating "She appeared on "A Current Affair...". A reader would then have to go to the "External links" and read content. This is of concern to me because IMDb contains content that is more than likely not appropriate with personal information such as: "Trivia: Since May 2009, she works as a Clinic Manager at American Laser Centers. This is so not cool and could lead to issues. Wikipedia should never advance allowing this type of personal information. Also, the biographical content there (mini-bio) is "Busty'n'lusty blonde bombshell Alex Taylor". This is just not content Wikipedia needs to advance as trivia and invasion of privacy, to use as a "proof" of notability for article inclusion. IMDb doesn't even list her being on A Current Affair but does list, at the bottom of her porn videos, "Sin City Spectacular" in which her screen (or stage) name is only listed with no other information.
- Please note: Wikipedia is not censored, so porn content is certainly allowable as long as referenced by reliable secondary sources. I would however, think that editors, and possible Wikipedia at large, would have issues with advancing a biography where content includes links to other content with such things as videos titled "Where the Boys Aren't 12" or "Where the Boys Aren't 13". I can think of a whole lot of reasons why connecting porn videos to the word "boys" and connotations (if not actual) to ages would be a big Red Flag, and I am talking legally not morally. This is not a slippery slope we should get near.

On a more graphical point: The listing of the external links to Internet Adult Film Database (DO NOT CLICK IF YOU FIND GRAPHICAL SEX SCENES OFFENSIVE) brings up a nice picture of the supposed subject. There is a link to "Performer Credits" that shows 17 gorgeous women that can be somehow possibly be interpreted as art, BUT!!! Just below "Submit bio corrections" are live video links to Punishtube.com listed as "The most extreme site ever made". This site splashes advertisements that shows women, that appears to be in extreme pain, having sex with hands around their necks and painful facial expressions, or what could be interpreted as being raped (violently) by multiple people, or with their hands over their mouth and a horribly painful look on their face as they are having sex. Adult Film Database is less not as graphical but pretty much a tits and ass advertising site also. This is what we are ultimately allowing on Wikipedia with these advertising bio's and that is more than likely the real push in the $13.33 billion (US only) porn industry: Free advertising. Some editors may like this and that is fine but is it encyclopedic? Otr500 (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I have recently, extensively edited the article under consideration here. The subject (who operated under a stage name as well, which is not uncommon at all) has "been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media"/passes GNG with coverage in The Spokesman-Review, The Pittsburgh Press, The Toledo Blade, the Associated Press, A Current Affair, Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition, and in some Knight-Ridder Newspapers. The subject here was also selected as Miss New Hampshire USA in 1991 before having her "crown" removed, in part because of the above mainstream media coverage. As was noted in the first AfD on this same subject in 2015, BLP1E doesn't apply as the subject here is clearly not "a low-profile individual".

The subject here doesn't appear to have an active official website, so there are no real "promotional" issues here. Also, an IMDb (which is reliable source pretty much only for filmographies) external link is very common in thousands & thousands of actor Wikipedia articles, and IAFD (which is a reliable source for adult filmographies & basic biographic information only) & AFDB external links are common in many, many Wikipedia articles of this type as well. Neither Vivid Entertainment nor IMDb is used as a citation in the article under consideration here. Commentary at AfD related to "I don't like it" or "it's unencyclopedic" carries no weight either. Guy1890 (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wille And The Bandits[edit]

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

Promotional article, no evidence they pass WP:NMUSIC. Refs mostly passing mentions; many do not support the claims they are listed against. GNews mostly passing mentions. PROD removed without addressing issues. NMUSIC#4 is the closest they might come, if there were actually international reviews in RSes (that could be easily verified, because the sourcing so far is simply not trustworthy). David Gerard (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - added some reliable sources to address the claims not being supported, some minor ce, and will work on expanding later with more refs that I think will satisfy GNG.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty good! Can we turn up international reviews? 'Cos that'd nail NMUSIC #4 - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Isaidnoway: Did you ever turn these up? 'Cos at present it's cited to a Dutch blog and some local papers - David Gerard (talk) 13:42, 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 06:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good amount of coverage in news websites. Well known on the live scene and covered and referred to often. The article here needs to be done properly. I'm more than satisfied on the notability of this group. Karl Twist (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Well known on the live scene and covered and referred to often" - if you have the cites for that, please put them in - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just went on another cull of promotional language and bad sources. The sources are not good - the main sources are (1) a single CD review in a Dutch blog (2) local papers - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NBAND; sources are mostly local with the undertone of "local band does well" and not much else. This is run-of-the-mill coverage on an insignificant subject. Delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NBAND#4 says "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" The Daily Telegraph article here states that "The band had spent several weeks on tour in Europe with appearances in Germany, Belgium and Switzerland." (confirmed here which also indicates that they've played Glastonbury and the Isle of Wight festival) whilst any Google search of "Wille and the bandits" live review" will give you multiple - albeit local - reviews of shows all around the UK. Here's a Dutch article in Blues Magazine previewing an upcoming show, and whilst I know a primary source isn't useful, look at their tour page - UK, Ireland, Switzerland and Germany, and some of those UK dates are at decent-sized venues (the Brudenell, 100 Club, Thekla etc.). This is not your average non-notable band. Black Kite (talk) 09:56, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Weber[edit]

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

self published author; claimed spiritual teacher, No evidence beyond his own blog postings. Possible speedy G11 as entirely promotional DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Into the stillness is a peer reviewed book, article in Psychology Tomorrow is of course independent, as is the interview with Rick Archer. Compare to Adyashanti. Presentations at Science and Non Duality conference are competitive and vetted. Not intended to be promotional, all teachings are free, with considerable scientific content. Author is a PhD in Materials Science from Penn State University, with work at GE, Oak Ridge National Labs, and elsewhere. Please advise for changes that could make this clear. Notability has been addressed due to the peer reviewed book, vetted presentations and independent article and interview. Thanks.Wetwarexpert (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetwarexpert (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a few more independent sources - interviews with Voice of America ( 2 parts), The secular Buddhist Association, Buddhist Geeks. and Conscious.TV. There is much more and I will add them as I have time. I also corrected one biographical detail as revealed by research. Wetwarexpert (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second Wetware expert's assessment. The author has had interviews that are independently selected (not self-promoted) and extend beyond his blog, including a Buddha at the Gas-pump interview (https://batgap.com/gary-weber/ - this series has interviewed a wide variety of well known figures, from Mooji to Deepak Chopra), an interview with Buddhist Geeks, another with "secular buddhism" (http://secularbuddhism.org/2014/04/27/episode-198-gary-weber-happiness-beyond-thought-a-practical-guide-to-awakening/), an review from SpiritualTeachers.org (http://www.spiritualteachers.org/gary-weber/), and another podcast through Mystic Wealth (http://www.mysticwealth.in/podcast/a-fascinating-conversation-with-gary-weber/)--these are the ones I could find. Note, as well, that his YouTube channel has nearly a half-million views. It doesn't seem correct to say, then, that he is entirely self-published or that there is no evidence beyond his own blog postings. Thanks. Etherfire (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete of the sources only one is not created by Weber, and that does not look to be in a publication that would count as a reliable source, but even if it was it would not be alone enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete There are numerous reliable independent sources under External Links, including a two part interview with Voice of America, the previously mentioned Science and Nonduality conference, Secular Buddhism, Buddhist Geeks, The Buddha at the Gas Pump. Rick Archer interviews are sourced at the aforementioned Adyashanti. i will integrate more of these sources into the life heading. Thanks. § — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wetwarexpert (talk • contribs) 13:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are literally zero reliable sources about this person, to the point of my being able even to verify his real existence. All of the references, except one, are articles by him, and the other single one is from Psychology Tomorrow, a non-notable web publication, not Psychology Today, which would be a reliable source. The rest of the arguments are hand waving. Our policy on bios of living people requires significant coverage in multiple sources about a person. This person is by all appearances just another one of thousands of ordinary therapists and writers. He is not notable generally and certainly not notable as a researcher. The only person with even a similar name who is cited on Google scholar is plainly somebody else. Bearian (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One article is the popular journal psychology today. I see Into the stillness : dialogues on awakening beyond thought by Gary Weber and Richard Doyle published by : Non-Duality Press, an imprint of New Harbinger Publications, 2015. with WorldCat showing only 10 copies in libraries anywhere, (New Harbinger is a specialist in books on mindfulness and related topics), some of whose books are widely held in libraries; this particular imprint describes itself as "A publisher of books on the contemporary expression of Advaita by mostly western authors and teachers." and its claimed best-selling book in in 9 libraries) , 2 self published books, a doctorate in an field irrelevant to his professional work, and some invited lectures. The contributor has confused the need for this article to be non promotional with the references that claim to be supporting it being nonpromotional. One book that is, to put it mildly, not a best seller and from an extremely niche imprint, s is not evidence for notability under any criterion. User: DGG, 18:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment'. According to its website, New Harbinger publishes books for mental health professionals with "research based scientifically sound books." Most libraries have cut their acquisitions drastically, so it is unclear if the number of copies of a book released in 2015 is indicative of the book's impact and notability. As New Harbinger states that "All of New Harbinger’s books are grounded in science, careful research, and a tradition of empirically validated clinical practice", it seems unfair to refer to the book as an "extremely niche imprint." The Psychology Tomorrow article, the interview with Rick Archer, the interviews with Voice of America, The Buddhist Geeks Interview, the Secular Buddhist podcast would seem to fulfill the notability of criteria of receiving significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. I will tally the views of each of these sources in order to evaluate notability, but Voice of America would seem a priori notable.

Wetwarexpert (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Harbinger does indeed publish mainstream mental health books, many of which are quite successful. But SWeber published his one book under their special imprint Non-Duality Press , which does not publish for mental health professionals, ("Founded in 2004, Non-Duality Press has established itself as the leading publisher of contemporary literature on the subject of non-duality...Since 2004, Non-Duality Press has been the leading publisher of contemporary literature on the subject of non-duality, a translation of the Sanskrit word “Advaita,” meaning “not two”—not separate from the universe or from each other. Contemporary non-duality stands firmly in the immediacy of the present moment, but often draws on the wisdom of ancient teachings, such as Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, to bring them into the intimacy of our modern lives."[2]) and has never published a book with more than 9 copies in libraries. Not even they would publish his other two books, which are self-published. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of assumptions here in the above that I am confused about. The first assumption is the idea that an imprint within a press somehow has different standards than the press itself. Non-Duality Press is a subset of New Harbinger, and New Harbinger clearly states that "All of New Harbinger's books are grounded in science, careful research, and a tradition of empirically validated clinical practice." "ALL" would be a category that includes the imprints here, as Non-Duality is part of and not distinct from New Harbinger. The second assumption is that somehow New Harbinger refused to publish "his other two books", when research indicates that both Happiness Beyond Thought and Dancing Beyond Thought appear to have been published before Into the Stillness. Information on both books indicate that all proceeds go to charitable sources, so there are number of explanations for self publication that do not point to any inability to be published. Again, the comparison would be Adyashanti, all of whose books are self published by a non profit. Given that according to his webpage that there are other venues of publication including Mountain Path and Direct Path, this assumption that self publication indicates an inability to be published elsewhere would not seem warranted. Thanks. Wetwarexpert (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may chime back in here... I know and understand that Wikipedias editors are primarily responsible for ensuring that only quality and significant articles are posted on the encyclopedia and I think both wetware, myself, and others working on this article respect that endeavor. We also understand that conflicts of interest and lack of cooperation are often reasons for deleting articles of living persons. Thus, I will speak personally and note that I have little personal connection with the subject in question besides keeping up with his blog and YouTube videos and having attended two of his meditation retreats. This in itself cannot be reason to disqualify me from writing, editing, and arguing for the article given that articles must be written by those who find the subject at hand interesting, meaningful, and noteable. It is hard with figures known for spiritual topics because it is easy to perceive the desire for an article as proselytizing, but I want to be clear that I have no personal reason or motivation of this sort, nor does Weber have an organization to proselytize for.

I had heard about him primarily through his increasing web presence and increasing Notability within the circles who are interested in nonduality. I recognize that this is a small subset of interests within a small subset of people (those who engage in various forms of localized and non-denominational spiritual practices) but within this group, Weber has become increasingly noticeable. Again, I am not interested in proselytizing only in providing information about a figure that is worth noting within this community and, increasingly, beyond it. Wetware keeps pointing to Adyashanti because he is a comparable sort of figure, except with a larger organization built around him largely because he has been at it longer and has also been more interested in working with a formal foundation... Something that Weber has repeatedly refused. I don't think having a formal nonprofit is a standard for Notability , especially within this kind of domain. But even with Adyashanti, he self published at first, as Wetware indicates. This may be, like Weber, in order to avoid traditional constraints and money-making elements so essential to publishing with presses. If anything, the fact that Weber has moved into an imprint (one entirely relevant within the interest he is known for) is an argument for him having become noteworthy enough to warrant a page. At least this was my understanding and my motivation in helping to put a page together for him. I understand he might be on the fence from the perspective of the general public, but Wikipedia often publishes articles about figures who are of note within special communities as long as they bear relevance to public knowledge. Given the number of articles published on him within this community (as had been listed several times by myself and wetware) and a few that extend beyond it, I think that this warrants keeping the article, or, if nothing else, taking Wetwares arguments above as serious engagement with your concerns. [in fairness, a Full disclosure: I know Wetwares personally but was not contacted by him to write this post. I am trying to be as neutral as possible while still helping contribute to Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and efforts] Etherfire (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the more exact way of putting it is that we cover material of interest to special communities if it addressed to whatever interest the general public ay have in those communities and subjects, but not if the purpose is to promote the views of the individual or community. The discussion above indicates to e that the purpose of this is indeed promotional. The problem of dealing with people on the fringes of various fiedls is a difficult one, because they tend not to have adequate coverage in any one thing. There is also a difficulty in covering people whose accomplishments lie somewhat outside what is covered by the usual sort of sources available to us. Advaita Vedanta is a recognized spiritual mode about which a great deal of commentary and discussion has been written, but his exact relationship to it seems to depend upon his own opinion, and the intent of the article is to promote it. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I appreciate your work here and your willingness to work with me and the others who have contributed to this article. I really appreciate your clarification on this issue of this being a somewhat fringe field. As you note, Advaita Vedanta is indeed a recognized spiritual mode. Weber's relationship is not, as you say, of his own opinion but has been verified by the interviews cited. I have read through or watched through most of them; they are independently produced by various authorities on these matters, including the TAT foundation and Rick Archer.

Let me add another disclosure and another citation (although this will likely void my anonymity): I am an academic who now holds a tenure-track position at a major university. I study issues of science and mysticism and have written over 400 pages on the topic. In my Ph.D thesis I discuss Weber's work, it's relation to neuroscience, and it's relationship to Advaita Vedanta (among other things). This dissertation was defended in front of 5 tenured academics and is considered published, although it won't be available to the public for another 2 years so that I have time to get a book version of this dissertation together (it was for this reason that I also did not cite it originally). I am laying this on the table both to note that a) my interests are entirely scholarly here and b) I can add this citation in as additional reference if it would help solidify the independent notability and clarification about Weber's position. In saying this, please note that I took care to avoid Wikipedia's "No original research" policy; I have helped put this article together not as new research (that was done in my Ph.D thesis) but as an encyclopedia entry apart from my original research, although it draws on the same interviews and posts that I cite in my thesis. If I have violated another policy in doing so, please let me know. In addition, although I have professional connections with Weber's co-author for his last book, I do not think this constitutes a conflict of interest since I am no longer in an academic relationship with this co-author and have never been in a COI-risk relationship with Weber himself.

If I or the other contributors to the article have made mistakes in the tone or shape of the article, this is a different point than the question of notability. I am more than willing to work to make the article sufficiently neutral to a public audience looking to read about Weber. But this is a different question than notability and one which can be easily remedied by edits in tone and perhaps by more careful citations of the interviews rather than the blog posts and by adding in the aforementioned scholarly work. Of course, you have more experience with wiki page editing than I do and probably see problems here that need to be addressed. But if notability is at least sufficiently established, can we not work on it from there? Since you understand the policies better than I do and are in an even more neutral position, I'll leave the final say up to you, DGG. But, if it is alright to you, I'm going to wait to work on the article any more until this decision is made so that I don't put any more time into an article that is going to be deleted even if I add the things I mention above.

The last thing I'll say is this: as you can see from my talk page, my first serious attempt to contribute to wikipedia was during graduate school when I was doing research on another scholar. I had some trouble then with navigating the demands of wikipedia and was less careful about reading the policies. This time around I thought I'd give it another try, taking much more care to follow the policies. I read the guidelines for notability and looked through some of the recently deleted persons discussions, trying to make sure that this time a deletion would not occur. I also followed closely the form taken by other articles of this sort. I expected that the question of notability would remain separate from questions of tone and quality; I see that this was a bit naive and indeed they can be difficult to disentangle. I also expected that editorial relations would remain sufficiently civil so that people who are still trying to learn the ropes have sufficient time to work out what is at issue and what they need to do to make a quality article. Your last response to me was quite civil; I appreciate this and hope that we can continue to work to keep up the quality of Wikipedia. I say all of this because part of the reason I wrote this article was that I am planning assignments for future Editing and Writing courses and was considering including a Wikipedia assignment. I wanted some experience crafting posts of my own before asking students to engage in Wikipedia, particularly since I knew, based on my experiences before, that sometimes your work can miss Wikipedia's policies. Perhaps helping to write a biography of a living persons was not the easiest place to start, but, having heard about the recent deletion of the previous Weber article, it seemed like worth a try. This has been a good lesson for me that I will undoubtedly pass along to students but with the hope that I can encourage them to participate in quality collaborative and open-source projects like this, rather than discourage them. Again, a sincere thank you for helping me navigate Wikipedia policies. Etherfire (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DGG, I am writing on this page because I can account for the notability of Gary Weber in my personal accounts and through the accounts of his predecessors. As a meditation and yoga teacher in Los Angeles, CA. I am affiliated with Keck Hospital of USC^[1] and have been a practitioner of Gary weber since 2008^[2]. He is understudy of Russil Paul a great spiritual teacher of India. He has received praise from Gary Kraftsow, Amy Weintraub, James Lough, and Richard Miller in his 2007 publication Happiness Beyond Thought^[3]. Gary Weber is a devotee of Ramana Maharshi and has published several works under The Direct Path^[4]^[5] and The Mountain Path^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]--JGmeditationandyoga (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC) — JGmeditationandyoga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ Gorenstein, Jason. "Awareness in the Workplace through Yoga". keckmedicine.org/awareness-in-the-workplace-through-yoga/. Keck Hospital of USC. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
^ Gorenstein, Jason. "About Me". jasongorenstein.com. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
^ Weber, Gary (2013). Happiness Beyond Thought. New York: iUniverse. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-595-41856-5. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
^ Weber, Gary (September–October 2016). "How Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi changed my life" (PDF). Ramana Gyan Direct Path. XIX (1): 15–18. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
^ Weber, Gary (July–August 2010). "Living Beyond Thought". Ramana Gyan Direct Path. XI (6): 33–37. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
^ Weber, Gary (2008). "On Using Sri Ramana's Teachings For Yoga Practices" (PDF). The Mountain Path (April–June): 73–78. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
^ Weber, Gary (2010). "Everything Is Predetermined-Is That Scientifically Possible?" (PDF). The Mountain Path (Jan–March): 3–8. Retrieved 9 October 2016.
^ Weber, Gary (2011). "Where Does This 'I' Arise" (PDF). The Mountain Path (October–December): 81–86. Retrieved 9 October 2016.
^ Weber, Gary (2013). "Non Dual Meditation and Self-Enquiry" (PDF). The Mountain Path (January–March): 81–86. Retrieved 9 October 2016.

Delete I'm not seeing the multiple, significant coverage in reliable sources needed to establish notability. The support for this article from an editor with very few edits who has not been active for more than two years, and from an SPA raises the possibility of WP:canvassing. Meters (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article's sources are his own website and blog, and there's virtually nothing else to be found about mr Weber. Non-notable. Yintan 14:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you all for considering the article. As I said above, I am an academic who has had contact with Mr. Weber and have studied his work with neuroscience and Vedanta. I, perhaps mistakenly, thought that he had reached sufficient coverage based on his new book and prevalence among the circles I have studied. A few people I have met in my studies had alerted me to the deletion of the wiki article that they had tried to start (without Mr. Webers involvement) and so we made a good effort to put together an article of sufficient quality and meeting Wikipedia guidelines (the other poster above was one of those individuals who independent of Mr. Weber, was involved in the editing) . If there is not sufficient Notability, this is perhaps understandable and, as I said above, we all respect your work to keep Wikipedia of high quality. I say all of this because, from what I understand, the accusation of canvassing hurts both the chance of a future article on Mr. Weber should he ever warrant it as well as my capacity to work on future Wikipedia editing. As I said above, I am very much interested in learning the ropes and contributing in the future. Thanks for the enlightening editing process. Etherfire (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm confused. You created this article [3], not the other editors. Or was there a previous article that was deleted? Meters (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous article, not created by me (I didn't know of it until it was deleted) that was subject to speedy deletion, yes. That's what prompted me to help put together (with a few others) this article since a full discussion wasn't able to be held at that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherfire (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Meters (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All, I apologize for continuing to speak up after my notes above, but a few more citations came to my attention this morning that are worth mentioning. I added them to the article. I think that these are legitimate and sufficient to warrant keeping the article. If you would like I can post them collectively here but I think that we can all reference both the external links at the bottom of the page and the citations I have inserted to get a full sense of where he has been talked about. Also, I ask that we all keep in mind the issue of largely oral, informal, and relatively small, yet noteworthy communities (both Advaita Vedanta and the Science and Nonduality cohort classify as these) noted in the discussion with DGG above. Thanks Etherfire (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable self-published author, who also "offers talks, online videos, and a blog on non-duality". Strictly WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; WP:PROMOTION applies. Kierzek (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete -- considering the fact of what I have seen thus far, Notability is incredibly subjective. Author Adyashanti has worked with Oprah, although recognized, it is up to editors whether that seems notable. Spiritual teacher Nisargadatta Maharaj references are mostly from himself with a few outside sources. It does seem that Gary Weber meets the criteria presented in Wikipedia:General notability guideline and has met each of the criteria for "Creative Professionals". Instead of remarks presented by K.e.coffman and Kierzek please provide specific examples of how to improve Wikipedia:General notability guideline for the editors to meet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGmeditationandyoga (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC) — JGmeditationandyoga (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:00, 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. This has been open for nearly a month, and the time has come for a close. The consensus of non-sockpuppets, non-sockpuppeteers, and non-SPAs is clearly for deletion. If anyone wants to create a redirect at the title, you're welcome to do so. Deor (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion Consulting[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable company defunct since 2008. Little secondary coverage outside of press releases. Please note Fusion Consulting shares a similar name with Fusion Consulting, Inc., which uses a different logo. Blackguard 16:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Global Intelligence Alliance Group which already has appropriate brief coverage, including GIA Asia which was presumably the successor division. While I am seeing the former firm's research papers having been quoted, evidence of coverage of the firm itself is not apparent. A couple of "best company to work for" awards is not evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for your comments User:AllyD. I will address each separately for thoroughness of the discussion.

1) Regarding your comment "Global Intelligence Alliance Group which already has appropriate brief coverage, including GIA Asia which was presumably the successor division". ==> There are numerous (likely many thousands) of companies which have are defunct (either due to acquisition, merger, or other causes) which are arguably invaluable components of wikipedia. I provide a few examples here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maddux_Air_Lines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ValuJet_Airlines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylex
Dozens more examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_Canadian_companies

"There is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". Including this article which covers a notable topic (notability demonstrated below) will enrich and benefit readers with an interest in this industry. On the whole, the benefits of keeping this article far outweigh any benefits of deleting it. I would personally prefer to see the energy spent on further debate about this article expended on creating add'l well researched articles for other wikipedians and readers to benefit from.

2) Regarding your comment "While I am seeing the former firm's research papers having been quoted, evidence of coverage of the firm itself is not apparent" ==> The firm itself is inextricably tied to it's research papers. An analogue to exemplify: an author is notable if his/her work is notable. The same principle applies here. Moreover, the firm itself (not it's work) is referred to in multiple reliable and independent articles, namely:

Vault.com [[4]]
Consultancy.uk [[5]]

3) Regarding your comment "A couple of "best company to work for" awards is not evidence of notability" ==> The award in question and the company awarding it are widely known and very well regarded in the consulting industry. The company in question confers the awards annually, using a rigorous, objective and fact-based evaluation process (I know this because I have followed their rankings for many years, and my firm was previously evaluated by Vault.com). If one looks into the specifics of the award in question, one can only conclude that it supports notability. Moreover, and more importantly, the company in question has received coverage in the following 8 reliable and independent sources. Per wikipedia guidelines, that makes it notable. I show those below for easy reference:

Asia Food Journal [[6]]
Telecomasia.net [[7]]
Consultancy.uk [[8]]
Vault.com [[9]]
HBO Asia [[10]]
HBO South Asia [[11]]
The Times of India [[12]]
Marketing Magazine [[13]]

Newtonslaw40 (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (no need to redirect) There are absolutely no reliable sources to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. This is definitely not notable. I am also unable to find reliable sources to verify the acquisition and stuff. In any case, I don't think we require a redirect here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest you further and carefully review my comments below, as well as each of the independent sources provided for the article. With those hard facts in hand, you will see the company very clearly satisfies these notability criteria WP:CORPDEPTH. Moreover, you mention "unable to find reliable sources to verify the acquisition and stuff" - I suggest you simply read the sources supporting the article, particularly the Consultancy.uk (a widely read industry website) which has independently covered the topic, I provide said source here for easy reference: [[14]]

Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source contains a trivial mention. More importantly, many of the sources are not reliable. None of this satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The company clearly satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines for notability [(organizations and companies)]. As shown below, this company is covered by multiple sources which are unquestionably reliable and independent of the subject. Given the depth of coverage and the reliability of the sources in question (listed below, under point 2), there are in fact no fact-based grounds on which to state that this company is "not notable".

1) Wikipedia's notability guidelines are very explicit. They state as the Primary Criteria that "A company, corporation, ..., product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." The facts clearly show that this company satisfies this criteria.

2) Furthermore, Wikipedia guidelines state the following regarding the Depth of Coverage of those sources: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[2] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." The company covered in the article has received coverage in the following 8 (i.e. multiple) reliable and independent sources:

Asia Food Journal [[15]]
Telecomasia.net [[16]]
Consultancy.uk [[17]]
Vault.com [[18]]
HBO Asia [[19]]
HBO South Asia [[20]]
The Times of India [[21]]
Marketing Magazine [[22]]

3) Wikipedia guidelines state the following regarding the Audience of those sources: "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." If one does cursory research, each of those sources clearly have an international audience and wide readership within their industry segments.

4) The company in question is listed on the HBO corporate website -- on the the milestones page no less. HBO is a globally significant multi-billion dollar media company.

5) The company in question is mentioned 3 times in the HBO Asia wikipedia page. [[23]], further demonstrating that it is notable.

Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does meet notability guidelines (can't argue that). Quite well written. Lots of defunct companies on wikipedia. I don't see why this one is different than other defunct companies on wikipedia which meet notability guidelines. Company has quite a number of acknowledgements in reliable media. And HBO mentions are impressive. Let's keep it.Mikiwaky (talk) 06:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Mikiwaky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Like my statements below, that's exactly the concern, simply stating other articles but not actually acknowledging and considering them, simply saying it "somehow" satisfies the notability but not either state how or at least incorporate the concerns and counter them sufficiently and clearly, is not the same thing as simply keeping, because that's not the case here and it's certainly not the solution. There is convincing from having "well written", "[it is not] different than other companies", "acknowledgements in media and mentions".... SwisterTwister talk 20:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of these Keep comments are entirely questionable, from citing other articles as defenses to then actually citing trivial and unconvincing PR sources, we cannot auotmatically presume and accept an article simply because of that; there needs to be actual attention to the concerns acknowledge them, therefore if deletion is genuinely needed, as is in this case, that's the best option. I still confirm my PROD which is still applicable and is still clear and staunch with the concerns listed. I PRODed because this should've been deletion long ago, such blatant advertising, regardless of whatever, but the user who reviewed this long ago apparently had not considered it at all, as they were a new user. SwisterTwister talk 20:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly WP:PROMO; a product brochure / client prospectus in the form of a Wikipedia article. Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom - a basic WP:BEFORE turns up nothing substantive in RSes about this Fusion Consulting. (Note that, as you might expect, there are many companies of this name, so don't just look at Google hit counts.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom Wondering why they did not put their brochure instead? Light2021 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mikiwaky, the article is well cited with reliable secondary sources. The company seems notable as seen a part of HBO's milestones here. 39.54.78.152 (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC) — 39.54.78.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Every single one of them is a trivial mention. When there are too many SPAs, it is surely not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep defunct? Obviously as it was acquired by Global Intelligence Alliance Group in 2008 1. The company had association with 'popular Asian channels'2. 1900toni (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 one word mention in the first source. No mention in the second source. How does this pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Btw, have you been paid to put a vote here? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Global Intelligence Alliance Group per AllyD above. The sources for this article are just terrible and would not constitute depth of coverage even if they weren't. A Train^talk 13:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:A Train, which of these sources do you perceive to be terrible? From my perspective, the below ones are actually really solid (reputable, international, significant in their industries). It would be very helpful if you could explain specifically why you evaluate these as "terrible" sources?

Asia Food Journal [[24]]
Telecomasia.net [[25]]
Consultancy.uk [[26]]
Vault.com [[27]]
HBO Asia [[28]]
HBO South Asia [[29]]
The Times of India [[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/HBO-Star-Plus-Asias-most-popular-channels-

Thanks, GreenMountainGate (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bon soir, GreenMountainGate. I'd be happy to go through those sources. Before we start, I note that you haven't called out half of the sources for the article, which is just as well because they're press releases and a LinkedIn page. I'll assume we all agree that those are not reliable sources, and thus terrible. So onto the rest.

The Asia Food Journal and Telecom Asia pieces are not articles about Fusion -- they're referencing a survey conducted by the firm. So that does not represent depth of coverage that would satisfy WP:CORP. The Consultancy UK piece never mentions Fusion Consulting once -- makes it difficult for use as a source for an article about Fusion Consulting. The Vault.com PDF and HBO websites are not reliable sources -- just as a refresher, Wikipedia defines a reliable source as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Finally, the Times of India link is a 404. So yes -- those are all terrible sources, I'm afraid. A Train^talk 20:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article meets notability criteria, it's backed by at least 7 reputable sources from what I can see, they're shown above but I show them here again. The company and it's work are actually on the milestones page of HBO -- that says a lot. If all of this ain't KEEP material, what is???? It would seem this is an straightforward Keep decision IF we stick to wikipedia rules. On a more general level, I must say, this article deletion process seems very odd. The comments supporting deletion are somewhat akin to character assassination (they are often fact less, broad opinions and often rely on the impossibility of proving a negative). It feels as though there is bias at work here to have this article removed as the facts supporting keep are very strong. I would welcome any opinions on this. Also, this is pure speculation, but could it be some editors are a using coordinated approach to article deletion by supporting one another rather than looking at the virtues of a given article? It seems this does happen as I learn more about the process on various deletion discussion pages. I can try to share some views on some of the above comments for further discussion and evaluation in the coming days when I have a free moment.

Asia Food Journal [[30]]
Telecomasia.net [[31]]
Consultancy.uk [[32]]
Vault.com [[33]]
HBO Asia [[34]]
HBO South Asia [[35]]
The Times of India [[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/HBO-Star-Plus-Asias-most-popular-channels-

GreenMountainGate (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged within this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sezan Mahmud[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability extremely questionable. Per WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE the article dose not passed the criteria and failed WP:NPOV. No significant coverage and reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Written like a resume. All of the references are given in a tricky way try to make fool the readers. In the given references, there are some of personal website links, university prospectus, even YouTube links and multiple dead links. Hundreds of academics are reported in each university's website, that alone doesn't make them notable. Also the person is not known widely and not received notable award for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique in his literary/creative works. Self-published article, cause article creator have no edit except this. I was surprised that, how Wikipedia contains this article since 2007! In 2008, Administrator Ragib asked for the notability in the talk page. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 20:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep (Updated, see Ragib's comment). This is odd. I can vaguely remember his name and he is definitely a published author. However, none of the cited links checks out. None of his appointments checks out from relevant websites. Either he is Not Notable or the entire article is filled with miss-information. Some part of the article may even be hoax. IDK. But, I'd concur with all of nom, and would say the subject matter of the article is not-verifiable. So, Delete. --nafSadh did say 17:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to keep. --nafSadh did say 18:58, 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 04:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.According to Notability,WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE policy and with the refernces check It is should be delete.--Rafaell Russell (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, primarily on WP:V grounds. Indeed, none of the awards claimed in the article check out when verification is attempted. The references given lead to either dead links or to pages that do not mention the subject, as, for example the reference cited[36] for the award by the American Public Health Association. A search for his name[37] at that organization's website returns no results, and the outcome is the same for a search[38] at the website of the American Association for Cancer Research, where that award was referenced. Altogether, there are too many dubious WP:V failing claims in the article, and they are too hard to separate from what is actually verifiable here, before we even get to the issue of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I was the user who originally prodded it back in 2008 or so. However, since then I have come up with enough proof of notability to my satisfaction. Mr. Mahmud is an award winning author -- he has indeed won the Agrani Bank award for juvenile literature. Note that this is the top award in Bangladesh for children's literature. Quoting Bangladesh Shishu Academy, Before introducing Bangladesh Shishu Academy Award in 1396 BS, this was the major national award for children's literature.. Mr. Mahmud uses two names -- Sezan Mahmud is his pen name, while professionally, his real name is Saleh M. M. Rahman. I have personally verified his professional credentials (after all, he's an alumnus of my current workplace), and it is incorrect that his appointments do not check out ... they do [39]. Besides his books, he also wrote the lyrics of many popular pop songs in Bangladesh (Bangladeshis can recall these songs I guess, "নেলসন মেন্ডেলা (ফকির আলমগীর), আমি নই সেই বনলতা সেন (কনকচাঁপা), কোন এক সুন্দরী রাতে (সামিনা চৌধুরী),). Overall, te article needs good citations, but the author is definitely notable. --Ragib (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the confusion regarding the two names. Can you provide a verifiable reference for the fact that he won the Agrani Bank award for juvenile literature? Right now this claim in the article remains unsourced. Or rather, there is kind of a reference "[Shishu, 15th year, 5th vol. p 43-46]" but it is unclear what this reference actually means. Nsk92 (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

@Nsk92, Shishu (শিশু) used to be the official publication/magazine by Bangladesh Shishu Academy. I do not know if it is still published now. The reference you mentioned seems to refer to a print edition of Shishu. Such references are fine for WP:V. Not all references have to be online. Given the award predates the Web and no Bangladeshi newspaper maintains online archives, a web reference is unsurprisingly not available. --Ragib (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Good. Thanks for your input. I guess I only tried with his pen name. It feels really odd, when the name sounds really familiar and I can't relate. --nafSadh did say 18:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't formulated an opinion on his notability as an author, but thanks to Ragib I was able to look him up as a professor of medicine. Given his citations on Google scholar [40], he does not appear to pass WP:PROF#C1, and I don't see any evidence of passing other WP:PROF criteria, so if he is notable I think it would have to be only as an author. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @David Eppstein: FYI, anyone can create his own profile on scholar.google.com. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Moheen Reeyad: What is your point? The profile is self-curated but the citation counts it shows aren't. And in this case the profile shows low citation numbers. Why do you think that its self-curation should change the inferences I draw from these low numbers? If someone had fraudulently obtained high numbers by including other people's publications, that would be relevant information in an AfD, but that's not what's going on here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I have explained my statement above in the nomination. User:Kaushik kamal 71 and User:BidhanShaha are the main contributor of the article and they have no edits except this topic. They are also highly interested about this person. And most of the edits comes from IP, while it seems self-written article. There is widespread lack of WP:NPOV. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Besides Mr, Mahmud's books, he has also created documentary films. In 2014, one of his documentaries "The Morgue", won an honorable mention at the Richmond International Film Festival (RIFF). [41]. Granted, it's not a very big name in film festivals, yet the point is that his film was shown in various festivals and has the track record of at least one awards. This and the Agrani Bank Award for Juvenile Literature should satisfy his notability. --Ragib (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Ragib. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 10:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Ragib.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead because there are apparently, at least from what shows, no actual major publications and library holdings, the article then contains nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I trust Ragib's judgement in this case. I would reconsider if another Bengali-speaking/reading user has a different view. --Hegvald (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to meet WP:NAUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Alfonso Abril[edit]

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

I'm not sure we really need a separate article on a painter who never existed. A mention in the person the writer meant to refer to would be enough. Katharineamy (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need articles on textual errors. However, if I read this article right, it seems we lack an article on the actual artist who made the work in question.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more opinions; is this error notable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears the article was originally started in the wrong name; the sourcing suggests that Juan Alonso Villabrille is the correct name. This might be worth a mention in an article about Villabrille, but we don't yet have such an article.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Padma Shri Awards recipients from sports field[edit]

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

We have decade wise lists for Padma Shri awards like List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–59), List of Padma Shri award recipients (1960–69), List of Padma Shri award recipients (1970–79) etc. Plus, we also have a category Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in sports to list the recipients. I CSD-ed it but got declined. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We also have them included in Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in sports apart from all the pages where they are listed. This is an unnecessary fork. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Anup [Talk] 21:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep: Both category and lists can co-exist. Presence of a similar category is not a reason for deletion. We have numerous cases where similar list exists for a category. Pratyush (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @PratyushSinha101: Can you provide some examples?
  - @Vivvt: this category and List of people from Delhi, Category of BHU people and List of Banaras Hindu University people, Category of Hindi language writers and it's list. Hundreds of other examples present. Pratyush (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @PratyushSinha101: This is not a relevant example here. Get me a list which has entries already present in another list(s) along with its category. - Vivvt (Talk) 10:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Vivvt: I do think that was a relevant example. Still here is another, many people of List of Banaras Hindu University people and List of people from Uttar Pradesh are similar. For more examples go through this category and it's subcategories. Many people appear multiple times. Pratyush (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        @PratyushSinha101: Not sure if you have understood the rational behind this AfD. This is a list of people who have won a particular award and their entry is already present in the list of award recipient. So it duplicates the content. With your logic, we can create numerous lists like "List of people from Delhi who have won the Padma Shri", "List of Banaras Hindu University people awarded with Padma Shri". - Vivvt (Talk) 13:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has it's own importance. Jessie1979 (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 20:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]
- @Jessie1979: Can you elaborate more about this particular article and its significance compared to the existing padma lists? - Vivvt (Talk) 13:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vivvt: We need separate list, to provide clarity to wikipedia readers 1. Readers should understand who got Padmasri in sports? 2. What are the major sports field got Padmasri? 3. Indian Government is giving importance to the those specialized sports or few people in those sports based on their political importance/recognition? I hope it is clear. Jessie1979 (talk) 14:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 20:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

1. Readers will understand who got Padmashri by reading the list of who got Padmashri and by going through the category of who got Padmashri in Sports. That's clarity enough! If they don't get it from these two things then they is high possibility they wont get it through this list also. 2. Major field? The list that you are supporting to keep doesn't do that anyway. 3. Wikipedia is not to be used for your propaganda and to correct the wrongs of the world. Write a blog, post facebook message, take out candles, block the roads, burn state properties, hijack airplanes, do massacres and whatnot to do that. Not here! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am not against to the government, I gave clarification and as per my understanding wikipedia should give clear information to the readers at a single page. No one has the time to dig wikipedia like you and me for simple information. Jessie1979 (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Revert as per WP:BLOCKEVASION using strikethrough font. 20:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)]

We do not specifically write for lazy people. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN as complement to Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in sports. As that guideline makes clear, simply pointing to the existence of a category on the same topic as a list is not an argument for deletion. And the annotated fields in this list as well as its sortability even gives it clear added value above the category, so even notwithstanding CLN (specifically WP:NOTDUP) the argument that the list is merely "duplicative" is incorrect. postdlf (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - too much useless info; we are not a web host for sports fans. The "cat" works fine. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is essentially duplicating the information in List of Padma Shri award recipients (2010–19). What's more, that article already has a list which can be sorted by the field (in this case, "sports"). I do not see why we need to create sub-lists for these. I also noticed that we do not sub-categorise other similar lists - for example, List of Presidential Medal of Freedom recipients. Accordingly, I would suggest a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said by Lemongirl942 this is essentially creating an article out of a column in a sortable table present on articles of Padma Shri recipients(eg:as in List of Padma Shri award recipients (2010–19)).A "cat " fork works out fine.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: People voting delete are requested to take a look at WP:CLN and two lists somewhat similar to the ones being discussed List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army and List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F), both of which are featured lists. Pratyush (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Moody[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced article about a person notable mainly as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not an automatic notability pass per WP:NPOL -- if you cannot show that he's notable enough for an article for some other reason independent of his candidacy itself, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to attain notability because candidate. However, the only potential claim of preexisting notability here, that his company is "the largest auto repair business in New England", is completely unsourced (and the whole business section is in fact a quasi-advertorial WP:COATRACK for the company instead of being about him). The sourcing here is entirely to four pieces routine campaign-related coverage that would be expected to exist -- of which #1 is a mere blurb about his campaign announcement; #2 is a substantive profile of him that would count toward GNG if the sourcing around it were better, but cannot carry GNG by itself as the only valid source; and #3 and #4 are both dead links whose content is unverifiable. This is not enough sourcing to make a non-winning candidate suitable for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even as a Mainer I can't say I disagree with the reasoning given above. Not only was he a non-winning candidate, but his percentage of the vote was very low. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. It's basically an ad for his business - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sympathize, I really do, but it looks like no one bothered checking Google News or archive.org. There's a long and detailed profile here, more recent coverage here, more coverage about the 2010 race here, and a magazine biography here. (There's also an opinion piece here, not sure if those count though.) The "missing" sources #3 and #4 are, like almost every online newspaper article, on archive.org here and here, although neither provides as much detail as the other sources do. 2602:306:3A29:9B90:892B:720A:D76D:82AE (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's precisely the sort and amount of coverage a failed candidate would have, and doesn't swing notability - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is the notability rule, then? I thought it was "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". 2602:306:3A29:9B90:892B:720A:D76D:82AE (talk) 09:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - All candidates for office in all elections always garner coverage in the local media, so coverage of a non-winning candidate's campaign is considered WP:ROUTINE unless it can be shown to expand significantly beyond the bounds of what could reasonably be expected. For non-winning candidates, there has to be significantly more than the normal and expected level of campaign coverage, namely by getting into sources (such as The New York Times or the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Los Angeles Times) that would not be expected to be covering an election in Maine that extensively. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Well-known businessperson and independent candidate for governor.--TM 10:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent candidate for governor" is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia — politicians have to win the election and hold the seat to be includable because politics, and do not get articles just because of the WP:ROUTINE and expected level of campaign coverage. A non-winning candidate gets an article only if he or she can be properly demonstrated as having preexisting notability for some other reason independent of their political activity (but this fails to cite even one source which shows that he's as notable and "well-known" as a businessperson as you claim he is), or if the coverage can be shown as wildly more than the normal level of coverage that all candidates for office always get (which none of the campaign sourcing shown here is). Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see ample evidence of passing GNG with multiple independent sources covering the subject in detail. Whatever standard you have about candidates is immaterial to this discussion.--TM 18:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about my own "personal" standards, and is not immaterial to this discussion — what I said is not some shit I just made up, but Wikipedia's standard rules for the notability of an unelected political candidate: it's nationalized coverage or they're out. Every candidate for every political office in every election anywhere could always be claimed to pass GNG if the WP:ROUTINE and expected level of localized coverage were all it took — the coverage of an unelected candidate has to nationalize before GNG is passed. Not because I said so, but because AFD has a fully established consensus that says so. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to where it says that in the general guideline for notability? WP:ROUTINE is nestled under Wikipedia:Notability (events). Is Shawn Moody an event? No? Ok, so the standard guideline is GNG. Taking something from events and applying it to biographies is not the consensus.--TM 23:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The election is an event, so ROUTINE does apply to election coverage. There are zero sources here covering him in any context outside of his role in an event. See also WP:POLOUTCOMES, which also specifies that candidates are not presumed notable just for being candidates, if you're planning to get snarky again. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This short bio from a statewide magazine is from six years after he ran and barely mentions his campaign. There is also a news story about his appointment to the board of trustees of the state university system and the community college system. I still believe that he easily passes WP:GNG, which is the standard for any article. Bearcat, clearly you disagree, but you are not going dissuade me on this.--TM 23:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is from USA Today, published in 2015. Easily found if the nominator had followed WP:BEFORE.--TM 23:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both blurbs, barely 100 words in length. WP:GNG is passed by media outlets giving the subject substantive coverage, not by media outlets glancingly acknowledging that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 14:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this not a no-brainer, with the quality of the sourcing? The argument about him being non-notable because he didn't come first is weird as hell. If you can't point to a specific line in a policy document for the highly-specific notion of excluding non-victors, it's surprising that you think you'll convince a neutral observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.206.160 (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The actual policy, from WP:POLITICIAN, is:

"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"."

It's like people switch up the words, and try to make everyone think that "does not guarantee notability" really means "does guarantee non-notability". 2602:306:3A29:9B90:D0F5:535F:71B1:CA8 (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're both misrepresenting what's being said. Firstly, what "quality of sourcing" here makes this a no-brainer keep? This is a poorly sourced article, not a well-sourced or WP:GNG-passing one. And secondly, nobody ever said that non-winning candidates can never be notable enough for articles — non-winning candidates sometimes have preexisting notability for other reasons which made them eligible to have an article regardless of their success or failure in an election (e.g. Clay Aiken, Sharron Angle), and occasionally explode into the national media in an unusually prominent and voluminous way that makes them more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But our job here is to have articles about officeholders, not candidates, so the winner of an election is the only person who gets to have the fact of that election in and of itself be the thing that gets them in the wikidoor — non-winning candidates must either (a) already have preexisting notability for other things, or (b) have the sourcing show that their campaign got significantly more coverage than all candidates for office always get in the local media. Nothing here passes either of those conditions. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:PSEUDO BLP and a vanity page. Does not meet NPOL as unelected candidate, and is not notable as a businessman. WP:PROMO also applies as the article discusses the subject's "Board nominations". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should focus on whether Moody passes WP:BASIC. It says a subject is notable if it "received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". It should be clear that this article has in fact surpassed that bar.--TM 14:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people, including yours truly, have technically been the subject of enough media coverage to pass BASIC without actually qualifying for a Wikipedia article for it, if the context in which that coverage was being given doesn't constitute a notability claim in its own right. Politics is one of those fields where Wikipedia is especially vulnerable to getting misused as an advertorial platform for unelected candidates' campaign brochures — unelected candidates for county dogcatcher could claim BASIC if local coverage were all it took. So we have to, and do, have specific standards for what kind of coverage counts toward a BASIC claim for a politician and what kind of coverage does not — and the routine and expected level of campaign coverage, in local media that would be expected to be covering that election because that's their job, falls in the does-not bucket. Coverage outside of that context would assist BASIC, because it would demonstrate that he was notable for other things; coverage beyond the purely local would assist BASIC, because it would demonstrate that he was getting known beyond the area in which campaign coverage was merely expected. But the routine and expected level of campaign coverage does not assist BASIC if it meets neither of those standards — an unelected candidate for office does not pass BASIC or GNG until the coverage is showing him to be significantly more notable than the norm for an unelected candidate, which nothing shown here does. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The routine overage related to the election should be discounted per WP:POLOUTCOMES, otherwise every single local politician in the Western world will become notable. Other than the political coverage, there is hardly any coverage. I also don't see any good coverage in national media. It's also very clear that this Wikipedia article is being used with the intent to promote his business. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: the suggestion to evaluate the article on WP:BASIC. Promotionalism is a perfectly good reason to delete an article; pls see WP:NOT, which is policy. The subject is not notable anyway, per available source. None of this rises to the level of encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is non-neutral language in the article, fix the article. However, multiple independent sources cover Moody in sufficient detail, so he passes WP:GNG.--TM 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torben Søndergaard[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}}.

Remove text from unreliable sources written by Torben Søndergaard's himself from the Torben_Søndergaard article makes the article almost non-existent as 3/4 sources are created by the subject.

And more should go according to the Wiki-standard. The article is simply not written according to the Wikipedia standard as hardly any of the sources verifiable, have no translations of sources in other languages, or are accessible. They are self-published, biased and the whole article is based on a claim of a movement that's non-existent.

There are hardly multiple reliable sources. The main sources are some tabloid newspapers and then Torben Søndergaard's own books, own website, own YouTube channel, and own opinion pieces in a minor Christian Danish newspaper. There is no movement. It's simply grandiose words from an upcoming YouTuber and conference speaker. When the critical stuff is gone from the article, this Wiki article is at best advertisement for a minor Danish ministry edited it's followers, fx RobbertDam, and the HMX-something guy who made a tutorial to other followers how to edit this page. The reason this page is getting attention is because Torben Søndergaard posted a link to it on his Facebook-page asking for help to make it positive - which is just as bad as negative - and then angry followers shared it.

And the Last Reformation is not really a worldwide movement. Writing a book, buying a website, making a Facebook-page, uploading videos to Youtube while stating something a hundred times does not make something real. This idea of a worldwide movement is simply an unfounded claim by Torben Søndergaard who simply hopes for a worldwide movement. There's maybe a few thousand active supporters worldwide and they, of course, vigorously all claim to have a movement, but - let's stay objective here - in fact, it's simply a claim.

In reality Søndergaard

has established three minor housechurches in Denmark with less than 100 members in total. None of them are existing today.
has 10-15 seminars a year with between 100 to about 1.000 people attending
no other established ministry anywhere else in the world than Denmark, where he for the most part seems to be unknown.
only a few thousands more or less active supports worldwide at best

Is he controversial? Probably. Does this make him noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia page? No.

Just look at the very modest activity on his Facebook page. This can in no way be a worldwide movement or a wiki-noteworthy person.

--HowDoesThisEvenwork (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only independent sources in the article, or that I can find elsewhere, are about the single issue of the subject's ideas about autism, and fall foul of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. And there's also the issue of reliability of those sources - The Sun is certainly not a reliable source, but I can't speak for the reliability of the Danish, Irish and Spanish publications cited. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Should be deleted. This article should have been written better but probably can't. He's too unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohannesSve (talk • contribs) 00:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — JohannesSve (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Agree. He is too unknown. If you Google his name you don't get many hits. Charismatic preachers that have much more followers than him, also don't have their own page (check Randy Clark for example) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaulMerkel (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — PaulMerkel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and salt. Delete per nom. Can't find much about the guy, except from his own sites and channels. Salt because given the article's history and sources it'll most likely be created again. And again. Yintan 06:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article talk page mentions "an organized attempt to delete the page by followers of the subject" being coordinated on Torben Søndergaard's Facebook page, including "a guide for others on how to 1) create autoconfirmed user 2) then try "Proposed deletion", 3) move on to "Discussed deletion"". --McGeddon (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think he just about pushes through WP:GNG, has a lot of coverage from local and continental sources, including the independant. People saying he has 'hardly any following', 20k followers on facebook is nothing to be snuffed at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "the independant"? I can't see any source cited to a publication of that or a similar name, but I might be missing something because many of the sources omit the publication name. And, sorry, but 20k, 200k or 2000k followers on Facebook are to be "snuffed at" (I think you mean "sniffed at") because we require significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which Facebook is not. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/cult-whose-leader-claims-demons-7916787 (UK national newspaper) , https://revolutionforjesus.com/2016/06/11/torben-sondergaard-and-the-last-reformation/, http://www.thepathoftruth.com/false-teachers/torben-sondergaard.htm, http://gccsatx.com/torben-sondergaard-last-reformation-cult, http://www.thejournal.ie/autism-heal-event-2735835-Apr2016/ (Irish National Newspaper) , http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/mum-warns-parents-religious-group-7849826 (another irish newspaper) , https://www.infochretienne.com/evangeliste-danois-defie-chretiens-propose-de-demontrer-puissance-de-dieu-rues-interview/ (French national media source), http://www.dublinlive.ie/incoming/controversial-last-reformation-preacher-coming-11247700, (dublin local newspaper). There is a lot more. Also http://www.dictionary.com/browse/snuffed — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you said "the independant" I thought you were referring to a specific source, such as The Independent, but I now see that you meant independent sources in general. And thanks for your link about "snuffed at" - it's an expression that I've never heard before but will now start using it. As for the sources, I would start by pointing out that the tabloid Daily Mirror is not regarded as a reliable source, and the others all seem to be in the same vein. Even if some of them are reliable, this still falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion preferred As compared to the original article, most of the controversial views have been removed for being poorly sourced. This page is now almost entirely based on the subject's own books, facebook and YouTube channels. If these kinds of sources are ok, more about the subject's beliefs and movement may be added in the future. It looks more like a self-serving page. Is this consistent with the policy for BLPs? Also, I don't think the subject's beliefs and practice eg water baptism, baptism with the Holy Spirit, casting out demons, faith healing etc are unique doctrines. They already exist in different denominations. The controversy against him is more a debate of theology already existed among these denominations. For example, the warning about baptism practice by the Lutheran Mission of Denmark. Nothing new about it. This kind of controversy deserves another page to set out the different views of different denominations rather than individuals. A BLP page is not the appropriate place for this. For the autism claim, I think the subject only mentioned once about the healing of autistic girl and it was not even him doing the prayer. Then this lady from Autistic Rights Together issued a warning about it but she didn't tell us if she had proved that the claim was false. These kinds of claim and dismissal both need to be verified. Including this in the page is neither here nor there and meaningless to the readers. For the 2008 festival saga, it is just an incident so insignificant and lack of details to be worth-mentioning. Wikipedia has to do better to protect its integrity and not to allow a page to be filled with junk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khwal (talk • contribs) 09:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Richard Arnold[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office, which is not an WP:NPOL pass, and for getting 15 minutes of fame in 1982 for heckling Ronald Reagan, which just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Of the 55 references being cited here, just 12 of them are actually reliable source coverage in media -- and most of those are just blurbs about the heckling incident and/or namechecks of his existence in WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the elections. Besides that, this is literally drowning in unreliable and primary sources like city council meeting minutes, raw tables of election results, voter pamphlets, directories of public access television programming, and conspiracy theory blogs. Literally nothing here, either on substance or on sourcing, constitutes a reason why someone like this would earn an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is a lot more to Gary Richard Arnold than just Quote: 15 minutes of fame in 1982 for heckling Ronald Reagan. He has been actively involved in the politics in the state of California for over five decades. He has been involved in numerous issues that involve the people of California. So what if he has been involved in some issues that have the "Conspiracy Theory" tag. That is only a minor part of the article and to make a statement of: "Besides that, this is literally drowning in unreliable and primary sources like city council meeting minutes, raw tables of election results, voter pamphlets, directories of public access television programming, and conspiracy theory blogs" is totally incorrect. Arnold is referred to, and referenced in many areas. He is more than notable to have an article here. People and things are notable in Wikipedia for a multitude of things. Some more than others. Not everybody here thinks some articles should be included but that's tough. One deletion nominator who I won't mention the name of, has IMO a belief that some music acts because they are uncool or square, should not be in Wikipedia. Well, let him start his own Coolpedia or Groovypedia. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not the fact that he happens to have beein "involved in some issues that have the Conspiracy Theory tag"; it's that the sources you're using to support that content are unreliable ones that cannot be used to support notability in an encyclopedia article. As already noted, of the 55 sources being cited here, 43 of them are unreliable ones — and of the remaining 12 that are reliable sources, exactly zero of those are covering him in a context that constitutes a notability claim. You cannot get an article kept in Wikipedia just by throwing any webpage that happens to have the person's name in it at the wall as "referencing" — 80 per cent of the sourcing here is to invalid references that don't count as supporting notability, and that's not acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually you're quite incorrect here and inaccurate, and I have to say that the answer gave didn't disappoint me in my anticipation. First of all parroting the "15 minutes of fame" even if unintentional, gives a false impression and is only a term that was used by some media sources. Arnold was covered in news papers all around the country as well as abroad. He appeared on television shows around the country as a result. Yes some of the other sources are lightweight and some may be regarded as unreliable but your estimate doesn't add up. The lightweight sources are of activities not generally covered in main-stream media. There are reasons for this but I won't discuss them here. This isn't the time and place. The thing is, is that these were included to give the article breadth so the reader can get an idea of his activities. I'm all for inclusion of info for a notable article. This is an article about a notable person. If others disagree then the article should be improved after all that's what Wikipedia is about. It's supposed to be about creation and improvement not destruction. This article has been here since October 4th, 2014. That's nearly 2 years.‎ In addition to Arnold's appearances on television in the 1980s in relation to Ronald Reagan incident, he has been covered on TV every time he has run in the California state elections over the years. In recent times he has also appeared on RT among others. Well old chap ... I do like your style but sadly you're grossly incorrect. 09:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm quite not incorrect about any of this.

Firstly, non-winning candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates. Because all candidates in all elections always garner coverage in the local media serving the area where that election is taking place, campaign coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot get the candidate over WP:GNG on "coverage exists" grounds. For campaign coverage to establish notability in and of itself, it has to be demonstrably more than what all candidates always get — but there's no evidence that that's the case here.

Secondly, Wikipedia has a rule called WP:BLP1E. Coverage of the Ronald Reagan heckling, regardless of how nationalized it got, doesn't make him permanently notable in and of itself, because the nationalized coverage of him doesn't exist outside of that one minor incident. Appearing on TV is not a notability freebie, either, if the only way you can reference the appearance is to use its own occurrence as its own metasource for itself because reliable sources haven't written about that appearance or its significance — so RT doesn't assist notability either. A person accrues notability by being the subject of coverage about him, not by being a soundbite giver in coverage of other things. I've done talking head on the news about things other than myself, but that fact does not give me a notability freebie if reliable sources aren't writing about me doing anything that would make me encyclopedically notable.

Thirdly, you say that you're resting on lightweight and unreliable sources for the conspiracy theory activity because reliable sources aren't covering those activities — but that's not how Wikipedia works. It is not acceptable to turn to unreliable sources and blogs and user-generated discussion forums to source things that aren't covered in reliable sources — especially in a BLP (but really nowhere else either, it's just that we have a special rule spelling it out in BLP contexts because it's so critical that we be hypervigilant about BLPs due to the risk of harm), the rule is that if reliable sources aren't covering the claim, then it can't be in the Wikipedia article at all. Wanting to pad an article with further context about his other activities does not give you a license to lean on garbage sources to do it — if reliable sources aren't covering that aspect of his life, then neither do we.

So no, I'm not the one misunderstanding or being wrong about Wikipedia's rules here. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, I'm just going to assume at this stage you're actually viewing things from a peculiar angle. Saying things like you have done so far, you've made out that this article was supported by basic brief mentions and a here and there mention. nothing more could be further from the truth.
Quote: - "Wikipedia has a rule called WP:BLP1E. Coverage of the Ronald Reagan heckling, regardless of how nationalized it got, doesn't make him permanently notable". Yes I know that. Arnold is notable for other things beside that incident that got him attention around the world. He was interviewed and covered in articles for his policies and what he stood for. Most likely he was interviewed in part as a curiosity because of him coming across as an extreme right-wing libertarian was unusual in that day and age. Also a man committing political suicide by his remarks about the Federal Reserve, CFR etc etc wasn't an everyday occurrence. Sure he was invited on television shows and interviewed possible to make him look way out but what the heck! He's been covered. And the notoriety followed him around for years has been a political curse of sorts. Yes, the Reagan incident got him noticed more. But you have to remember that Arnold has been a politician since the mid 1960s. He has been in the news for other things besides the multiple times running in elections up until recently.
Quote: - "Appearing on TV is not a notability freebie, either". This always brings a smile to my face. The use of "Freebie" can be used sometimes to throw it off the tracks and on to another. I've seen those who are voting for a deletion bring this "freebie" up time and time again. Not saying that's what you're doing here. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that you're looking at it with this peculiar angle again. I said that he has appeared on television for other things as well as the Reagan incident.
Quote: - "I've done talking head on the news about things other than myself, but that fact does not give me a notability freebie if reliable sources aren't writing about me doing anything that would make me encyclopedically notable." - I don't think I can reply to this as it sounds like you're talking to a child. Sorry, but that remark is so silly I'm not even going to reply to this. It's just nonsense. Sorry.
Quote: - "Thirdly, you say that you're resting on lightweight and unreliable sources for the conspiracy theory activity because reliable sources aren't covering those activities — but that's not how Wikipedia works. It is not acceptable to turn to unreliable sources and blogs and user-generated discussion forums to source things that aren't covered in reliable sources". You're being inaccurate again. NO! I said that some sources are lightweight. I was referring to many of the council government sources that showed his involvement in local government issues. The small amount of conspiracy sources are only to mark attendances of events and the odd interview or of film he appeared in. Films like Man Against the Machine, or this one here, or from the Patriot Flix website that has Alex Jones type documentaries on it. Many which can be purchased from sites like Amazon. Or 911 : The Greatest Lie Ever Sold or something from the Clay and Iron Ministries website such as him being interviewed on their Christian prophecy show or whatever it is. Referring to interviewed in "just mention" only. Nothing more and certainly not to support a view. If that were the case, in the 2 years that this article was up, they would have been removed or the neutrality of this article would have been challenged.
Quote: - "Wanting to pad an article with further context about his other activities does not give you a license to lean on garbage sources to do it — if reliable sources aren't covering that aspect of his life, then neither do we." - FINALLY!!! YES ... You've said something that may in part be true. Sadly I can only agree with "Wanting to pad an article with further context about his other activities" as I may have put in a bit much about his other activates and should only have put in half of what I did. But again, you are being inaccurate with "does not give you a license to lean on garbage sources to do it" as even though they're not garbage, I'm not leaning on anything. So that's inaccurate again. That But with "further context about his other activities" is just additional to an already notable article. Additional and nothing more. So, with the local government meetings and the films etc, have I been excessive ... Hmmm, OK thinking about it now, maybe ... possibly somewhat. So with what you said here, " if reliable sources aren't covering that aspect of his life, then neither do we", I'll take that on board as constructive criticism as I'm always looking to improve on my work.
And again, Gary Richard Arnold is a notable figure. Yes he got a great deal of media attention that led to his profile being boosted, and that got him on TV. But he was called back for his other views. He's now remembered 40 plus years later for other things. And yet back in the 70s and 80s, as recorded in Time, Volume 120, Issue 2, Page 86, he was known as the guy that "looks like Lennon, Talks like Lincoln", and as per the Ocala Star-Banner Oct 7, 1982 edition, he was told by Reagan to shut up because he said "Somebody has to say the emperor has no clothes". So he said his piece. But that's just one stage. Karl Twist (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "peculiar" about the "angle" from which I'm viewing this: I'm viewing it exactly dead on through a completely clear-eyed and completely correct understanding of Wikipedia's policies.

For one thing: "appeared on television" is not a claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, if the only sources you can provide for that are YouTube clips of the television appearances. "Was interviewed on the radio" is not in and of itself a claim that gets a person into Wikipedia, if the only sources you can provide for that are the radio program's own primary source website about itself. "Appeared in a film" is not in and of itself a claim that gets a person into Wikipedia, if the only sources you can provide for that are a film clip on YouTube or Patriotflix or a buy-me page on Amazon. If you want to include that kind of content in a Wikipedia article, you need to source that to reliable source coverage about those appearances — he can be in 10,000 films, and still not actually accrue notability for that until newspapers on the order of the Los Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle start writing about at least some those film appearances. He can appear on "Clay & Iron" a million times, and not actually accrue notability for that until reliable sources start writing about those appearances. And on, and so forth. So those things count for nothing toward notability, because they're not supported by reliable sources.

Secondly, committee work at the city council level works the same way: it can assist notability if the LA Times or the SF Chronicle are writing and publishing coverage about that work; it does not assist notability if you can source that work only to the council's own self-published meeting minutes. Notability criteria are passed by reliably sourcing that a person has received media coverage for doing or accomplishing something that passes a Wikipedia notability criterion — they are not passed by the fact that his existence can be nominally verified in directly affiliated primary sources like the meeting minutes of the city council, or press releases, or the self-published website of a radio program he happened to appear on. Either real media, completely independent of the claim being made, have written about that work or it counts for nothing. So working with a city council committee counts for nothing toward notability, because it's not supported by reliable sources.

Thirdly, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE, because all candidates always generate some of it. So coverage in the context of elections that he did not win does not assist notability or count toward WP:GNG. So those things count for nothing toward notability, because it isn't an acceptable notability claim in the first place.

And finally, all of those facts mean that all we have left, the only thing that isn't blown out of the water by either the total lack of reliable sourcing about it or its complete ineligibility to even be a notability claim in the first place, is "once heckled Ronald Reagan". And that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, it seems to be another variation on a theme from you. It seems to be more of the same old same old.
Quote: - "For one thing: "appeared on television" is not a claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, if the only sources you can provide for that are YouTube clips of the television appearances". Yes I know that. I'm not even saying the TV appearances be used to support the article. I just mentioned as a result of his arguing with Reagan and also his right-wing Libertarian policies being unusual for the time, he was invited on to TV and radio shows and interviewed. . I don't know why you're mentioning "YouTube clips" or Amazon in that context. I appears that you're making it sound like I'm trying to grab at this which is now silly. Not only that, you may note realize how misleading you're being. I just mentioned that some of the films on the site appear on Amazon. Now you're making it appear I'm saying something else. I just mentioned the site of the films that I listed has films that would sell on Amazon. Nothing more! I have only included the films he has appeared in for the expansion of the article and for the info interest of those reading the article. Certain films of a controversial nature, especially ones that are libertarian issues or ones that challenge the official version are generally avoided by mainstream news sources. I repeat, the only reason for their inclusion is for interest.
Quote: - "Secondly, committee work at the city council level works the same way: it can assist notability if the LA Times or the SF Chronicle are writing and publishing coverage about that work; it does not assist notability". Again! I say that I have included council / local government reports as an account of what he has been doing for the last few years. Arnold's involvement in issues that he believes concern the people of California. Some of the issues are to do with liberties, Smart meters:[42], Water fluoridation:[43] and the issues surrounding it. So the reports are just there to show what he has been doing. Not for notability.
Quote: - "Thirdly, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates" - Yes I know that. Arnold has been a politician since 1966 and he won a state primary at the age of 26. Later won a contested primary for state senate and later won a primary for congress. All through the way, Arnold has attracted attention for his somewhat controversial statements. Arnold has attracted attention and has been written about and interviewed for many other things other than the Reagan incident.
Quote: - "once heckled Ronald Reagan". And that just makes him a WP:BLP1E". Again you're repeating this again which in addition to being misleading is now becoming a bit tedious. There's much more to Arnold than just this. As I have said before, Arnold got a boost in profile (obviously) as a result of arguing with Reagan which was covered in hundreds and hundreds of news papers. If the boost in profile got him noticed more and possibly a platform to talk about issues he concerns himself with then that's the way it is. Much of the attention of Arnold is about his views. He is also notable. Karl Twist (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "more of the same old same old", the reason for that is precisely because I'm exactly correct about how wikipedia notability and sourcing policies work.

You question, for example, why I'm harping on YouTube links and Patriotflix when it comes to the documentary film — but those are the links that you provided to support his presence in the documentary film, so my statement was not a tangential left-field slice of randomness, but a completely straightforward response to the exact words you posted to this discussion.

And you keep flipping back and forth on the matter of the city council committee work and the conspiracy theorizing, too: if I argue in general that he doesn't have enough properly sourced notability, then you argue in response that those things boost his notability, but if I argue that those things don't confer notability, you argue in response that they're just there for supplementary context. And again, regardless of whether those things are a main ingredient of notability or are just there as garnish, they're resting entirely on primary and unreliable sources, and thus still cannot be in the article at all.

Winning a primary does not count as a notability claim either, just for the record.

Everything written or sourced in this article at all is one of three things: (a) nationalized coverage of him in the context of a single minor incident, (b) WP:ROUTINE local coverage of him in the context of local election campaigns where local coverage is expected to exist, and thus does not aid in building a claim that he passes WP:GNG, and (c) primary and unreliable source "coverage" of him doing things that don't count toward notability at all. Which leaves us at WP:BLP1E, exactly as I said above, because every single source that counts toward notability at all is covering him in the context of a single incident of no enduring notability. If it sounds like I'm repeating myself, it's because what I'm telling you is correct. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply OK, getting more tedious as we continue.
Quote: - "You question, for example, why I'm harping on YouTube links and Patriotflix when it comes to the documentary film — but those are the links that you provided to support his presence in the documentary film". Rubbish and now we're getting back to "Silly time" again. There are no YouTube links to support his presence in documentary film. Well not as you're trying to insinuate. The Movie section is only there to be complimentary to the article and as extra info for the reader. That's all there is. Nothing wrong with that. Yes one of them referenced. with Patriot Flix. The other is referenced on World News Network etc. Nothing to do with YouTube there.
Quote:-"And you keep flipping back and forth on the matter of the city council committee work and the conspiracy theorizing, too: if I argue in general that he doesn't have enough properly sourced notability, then you argue in response that those things boost his notability". As I've said, the local government and council minutes were soley there to give an idea of what he has been doing in local government and council issues, his participation etc. They don't boost his notability and were never added to the article for any other reason than what I stated. Sorry but you're starting to sound a bit like you did here with "I've done talking head on the news about things other than myself, but that fact does not give me a notability freebie if reliable sources aren't writing about me doing anything that would make me encyclopedically notable.". That doesn't even fit into the debate! Anything that is regarded as conspiracy theory like Fluoride or Smart Meters or Chemtrails or appearances at Conspiracy Con:[44] has just been added to the article as "added interest" value.
The subject of the article Gary Richard Arnold has received a lot of coverage world-wide for his challenging of Reagan and in doing that, he made history in American for being the first man to openly challenge the credibility of a standing president. That obviously got him the attention to be interviewed on his policies which lead to further coverage. Even prior to the Reagan incident, his saying that he was at war against totalitarians of Wall St. and Washington was going to be the wrong type of publicity. What you need to know is that Arnold, a controversial figure has been involved in politics and has been running in elections since the late 1960s up until recently. Plenty of coverage of a notable figure and possibly someone that doesn't make certain people in office happy but hey, that's what it is. I know he drew criticism for writing the article about the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, which was a 2 page write-up in the September 5-11 edition of The Philippine Times. Yes Arnold is not everybody's cup of tea, and the man is notable. Karl Twist (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. If this is becoming tedious, it's not because I'm the one misunderstanding or misrepresenting anything — I am still fully 100% correct in everything I'm saying about what's here and how it measures up against Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. You're the one making it tedious, not me.

You say here, for example, that there are no YouTube links being provided to support the notability of the documentary film — yet right in your previous comment, the one I was replying to when I mentioned YouTube links, you linked the title of the film to a YouTube link. So, again, I'm directly responding to what you said, not to strawmen I'm making up for kicks. And you're entirely ignoring my point, also completely correct under Wikipedia policy, that it doesn't matter whether the conspiracy theory stuff and the city council committee stuff are there "to support notability" or just "for added interest" — if you cannot reference it to reliable source coverage in media, then it cannot be in the article at all. If your only source for "appeared in a film" is primary sources like Patriotflix, and you cannot reference it to real coverage of the film in real media, then it cannot be in the article regardless of whether it's there to aid notability or just for added interest. If your only source for "was interviewed on the radio" is that radio program's own primary source website about itself, and you cannot reference it to real coverage of the interview in real media, then it cannot be in the article regardless of whether it's there to aid notability or just for added interest.

And you're also ignoring that "has been running in elections since the late 1960s up until recently" does not assist notability. It doesn't matter if someone ran for office once, twice, ten times or 100 times — they must win at least one election, and thereby hold a notable office for some length of time, before that activity gets over a Wikipedia notability criterion. Local coverage of the campaigns does not aid passage of WP:GNG, because local coverage of local election campaigns is expected and WP:ROUTINE — if a person didn't win at least one election to an NPOL-passing office during their political career, then they get an article only if that article would still be keepable under some other inclusion criterion even with the candidacy entirely discounted.

"He made history in American for being the first man to openly challenge the credibility of a standing president"? Er, what's your source for the claim that he was the first person ever? Lack of personal awareness of anybody else doing it before him doesn't prove in and of itself that nobody else ever did it at all, and no source present in the article credits him with being the first either. Unless what you mean is merely that he was the first person to openly challenge Reagan's credibility in particular, without regard to whether that had ever previously happened to Carter or Ford or Nixon or Johnson or Kennedy — but "first person ever to get into a public argument with one specific other person" isn't a notability criterion either.

So what we still have is a lot of stuff that doesn't make a person notable at all under any Wikipedia notability criterion, still leaving us with "once heckled Ronald Reagan" as the only reason he might warrant a Wikipedia article at all — and that still just makes him a WP:BLP1E who doesn't earn a standalone article for that. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Bearcat 6:44, 6 October 2016 post. Ok, so let's get this straight. Quote:- "yet right in your previous comment, the one I was replying to when I mentioned YouTube links, you linked the title of the film to a YouTube link." That's not what we're talking about and you know it. I have never used a YouTube link to add to the notability of Gary Richard Arnold on the article page. And the only time I have used it here in this discussion is only so you could have a look at what I was referring to. To give you a better idea of what I was talking about. Nothing more!
Quote:- "And you're entirely ignoring my point, also completely correct under Wikipedia policy, that it doesn't matter whether the conspiracy theory stuff and the city council committee stuff are there "to support notability" or just "for added interest" — if you cannot reference it to reliable source coverage in media, then it cannot be in the article at all." - I'm not ignoring anything and you're point(s) are not making a lot of sense with addressing this. The Small amout of "Conspiracy" stuff like his speaking at public venues like Conspiracy Con, talking about the dangers of fluoride and smart meters to people is just for interest. Nothing more. So, fair enough, if we're not allowed to add them to his page for whatever rules exist then I have no problem with that. This should be discussed on his Talk page, or Deletion Talk page. Seems you're still singing the same song, it's just a Variation on a theme !
Quote:- "And you're also ignoring that "has been running in elections since the late 1960s up until recently" does not assist notability. It doesn't matter if someone ran for office once, twice, ten times or 100 times". He's been involved in politics and has received coverage as a result no doubt. But, the coverage of Arnold, some of it is quite deep and solid comes as a result of his views and the noise he has been making over the years. That is not to do with elections, it's to do with Gary Richard Arnold being viewed as a controversial figure and such a figure he is, it's no doubt he would get interviewed for and covered by various types of media. Some people may view Gary Richard Arnold as a terrible person for his stance against the establishment and the fact that he openly challenge a president and accuse him basically of being nothing more than a puppet amounts to treason. Well, be Arnold a very brave who destroyed his own political career for voicing his views or be Arnold a madman who can't shut his mouth about things is beside the point. he is notable. These very brave or crazed views of his were bound to attract attention. Some good. Some bad. Much of the coverage of Arnold has been based on that. There's not many people willing to commit political suicide by voicing certain things.
Quote:- "Er, what's your source for the claim that he was the first person ever? Lack of personal awareness of anybody else doing it before him doesn't prove in and of itself that nobody else ever did it at all, and no source present in the article credits him with being the first either. Unless what you mean is merely that he was the first person to openly challenge Reagan's credibility in particular, without regard to whether that had ever previously happened to Carter or Ford or Nixon or Johnson or Kennedy — but "first person ever to get into a public argument with one specific other person" isn't a notability criterion either. - Well, he may be the very first person as I mentioned here [45]. I forgot to add maybe or possibly here. What I was getting at, is that he obviously was noticed for such an act that some people view as treason (because you aren't supposed to rock the boat), it was on the cards that he would be interviewed on TV and other media for his stances on certain things. Controversial = yes. Correct = well, that remains to be seen. But as a result, he became notable as he (even though he inherited the title as the man who once "heckled Reagan") has attracted attention for his views and outspokenness over the last 6 decades. Not unlike Alex Jones.
Quote- "So what we still have is a lot of stuff that doesn't make a person notable at all under any Wikipedia notability criterion, still leaving us with "once heckled Ronald Reagan" as the only reason he might warrant a Wikipedia article at all — and that still just makes him a WP:BLP1E who doesn't earn a standalone article for that." - No incorrect! What wee have is an article that has many, many news references from notable and distinguished (if there is such a thing) and prominent news sources. Much of the coverage is solid and some in depth. A good deal of his coverage is from his activities, outspokenness over the many years. Perhaps some refinements on the article would be in order and a bit of trimming here and there. Well, if that's the case then we have Talk page, or Deletion Talk page. So, lets discuss!
What the article has is good solid coverage in refs of a notable individual. Notable article! Karl Twist (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:31, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a perenially defeated candidate who has never won any office. His support of various ideas has not garned enough attention in reliable sources to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Arnold has been a politician since around 1966 and he won a state primary at the age of 26. Later he won a contested primary for state senate. later won a primary for congress. Yes he has never won any office but this is not what the article is based on. All through the way, Arnold has attracted attention for his somewhat controversial statements. Arnold has attracted attention and has been written about and interviewed for many other things other than the Reagan incident as well. He is a very controversial figure. Lot of media coverage on Arnold. Karl Twist (talk) 11:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so much coverage of Arnold and some good in depth stuff too. Known in different parts of the state of California for his activities both inside and outside politics. While it could be argued that his incident with Reagan, accusing the former actor turned politician of being a servant fir the banks, CFR and Trilateral commission had given him coverage that boosted his profile, he's been covered for a multitude of other things. Politics, activism, writing articles about the assignation of political figures, accusing governments of corruption, taking away liberties etc would attract media attention as well as the negative type as well. Arnold may be the poster boy for how to sabotage your own political career and make sure you get locked out. Probably an unpalatable man in the political arena for his abruptness and wild talking ... But he's notable and been covered. Karl Twist (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet WP:GNG; as stated, largely WP:BLP1E, with minor mentions in many primary sources, not conferring notability. WP:NN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Chiswick Chap 15:15, 11 October 2016 post. QUOTE:- "with minor mentions in many primary sources, not conferring notability", well it's obvious that you haven't had a good look at the page because what you're saying is totally incorrect. Your statement of "minor mentions in many primary sources" is false. Even for the Reagan event he had some in-depth articles and if you took the time to have look you'd see that "minor mentions" totally wrong. There's been coverage of Arnold over the years, more than the large amount of attention he got for accusing Ronnie Reagan of being a puppet for the elite. Arnold has been in the news quite a few times for his activism and also trying to get government organizations and officials to be more transparent.

Even before the Reagan incident his views attracted attention.
- Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 29, 1982 - Page 15 GOP Candidate Arnold Blasts Sentinel Reporter
- The Sunday Sentinel, June 20, 1982 - Page 1 Arnold Says He's At War Against Totalitarians

Then as a result of the Reagan incident he got good solid front page coverage including the below articles,
- USA Today, October 7, 1982 - Page 1 'Shut Up' Even Presidents Lose Their Cool By Gene Policinski
- The Washington Post, Thursday, October 7, 1982 Page 1 'SHUT UP' Reagan, GOP Candidate Clash By Lou Cannon
- The Ledger, Friday, October 8, 1982 10A Man who disrupted Reagan ready to sue over 'taxploitation'
- The Washington Times, Thursday, October 7, 1982 Page 1 GOP Candidate's remarks rile Reagan BY Wesley Pruden
- Bangor Daily News, Thursday, October 7, 1982 Conservative candidate draws Regan's ire
- Observer Reporter - October 7, 1982 'Shut Up' Conservative Accuser Rouses Reagan's Ire

And even though not front page, certainly not in the "minor mentions in many primary sources" class,
- New York Times, October 7, 1982 Regan is Angered by G.O.P. Heckler
- The Cincinnati Enquirer, October 8, 1982 Page 6 Republican Accuses Reagan Of Fraud
- Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 7, 1982 Page 8 The East Room Debate
- Lodi News-Sentinel, May 1, 1984 - A burr under the saddle ROBERT L. STUDER

Politically after the Reagan incident, he had been in the news
- Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 21, 1982 Page 2 GOP spying on own members, Arnold Charges -
- Los Angeles Times, August 29, 1986 - Orange County Digest, Placentia : Accept Candidate for Treasurer, City Told Candidate for Treasurer, City Told - John Spano
- Los Angeles Times, September 24, 1986 - Thwarted Placentia Candidate Appeals Order - Roxana Kopetman
- Los Angeles Times, October 03, 1986 Placentia : Critic of City Can Run for Treasurer, Judge Says - John Spano
- The Lewiston (Maine) Daily Sun, Monday, February 27, 1984 14 N.H. Primary: Not One To Lose
And for his activism

- Los Angeles Times, September 17, 1985 - Orange County Digest, Placentia : Critic Says Officials Barred Look at Records - Mark Landsbaum
- Los Angeles Times, September 28, 1986 - Orange County Digest, Placentia : Would-Be Candidate Loses Court Appeal - Roxana Kopetman
And he wrote an article that was published in and appeared across 2 pages of the Philippine Times about the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, written about in the following book,
Conspiracies and controversies: Phillippine's favorite conspiracy theories and most controversial Filipinos of the 20th century,
Erick San Juan, Rhodelee Joan Espinola, Vergel O. Santos, Casiano Atienza-Navarro - ISBN 9789719204916 Page 148, Page 168, Page 292.

That's just a slice of Arnold. Your statement to back up the delete vote is not founded. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment , just a reminder on some of his political career,
1966 He was a Republican candidate in California for the 1966 general election where he ran against Democrat nominee for Los Angeles' 63rd District, Yvonne Brathwaite Burke. as per Independent Press-Telegram, Sunday, October 30, 1966 Page 55, and United Press International, Oct. 6, 1982 Gary Richard Arnold, the Republican congressional nominee who was...
With his vote total of 31,350 (43.56%), he came short of her 40,616 (56.44%) votes. - Join California, Election History for the State of California November 8, 1966 General Election, and Our Campaigns CA State Assembly 63, Candidates
In 1982, he beat Anne Nixon Ball in the primaries. - Santa Cruz Sentinel, Tuesday, October 12, 1982 - Page 1 Republican leaders organize to write-in opposition to Arnold
Then he ran against Leon Panetta and lost with Panetta picking up 140,602 votes to Arnold's 24,068. - Reno Gazette-Journal, November 3, 1982 Page 18
He was also running against Reagan at one stage.
What I'm getting at is that in amongst his political career and activism, he has made a lot of noise and angered a lot of people and made enemies no doubt! If you could imagine Ron Paul amplified and with the gloves off, accusing presidents and politicians of being part of the One World Government agenda, then you would have Gary Richard Arnold. Some may consider him a whistle blower, while others may view him as an agitator and trouble maker. Well ..... the man is notable and unlikable and terrifying to some, but that's the way it is. Karl Twist (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep harping on "was a candidate" as if that somehow made a difference. For about the five hundredth time: people do not get an NPOL pass because candidate — they get an NPOL pass only if they win the seat and thereby become an actual holder of a notable political office. Unelected candidates for office get articles only if they can be demonstrated as satisfying some other notability criterion for some other reason besides the candidacies — and coverage of the campaign itself does not assist passage of GNG, because all candidates always get some coverage. So any sources which are covering him in the context of campaigning for a seat he didn't win, in media outlets that are routinely expected to publish coverage of that election and its candidates, are doing nothing to bolster his notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Bearcat 18:36, 12 October 2016 post. You're slanting it again my friend. I am mentioning Arnold has been a politician since 1966 and he won a state primary at the age of 26. Later won a contested primary for state senate and later won a primary for congress not to support his notability. He is notable without any of that. Arnold is notable for reasons other than his political career. There is a reason I'm mentioning Arnold's political history, not for the reasons you're trying to suggest, but to put things into better perspective.
Arnold has attracted attention before he made news nation-wide and around the world for his accusing Reagan of being a puppet and stooge. Arnold entered into politics and the fact that he was only beaten by 6.4% by Yvonne Brathwaite Burke showed he had promise. But instead of doing what most people with political ambitions do and stay on track and behave themselves, Arnold went off the rails and did what he either felt was right or was firing around wild accusations of political stooge-ism and corruption in paving the way for the one world govt. Right and righteous or wrong and crazy is beside the point. Arnold made noise and he got noticed. Then in 1982, he made history for openly challenging a standing president. He said things that made him instantly disliked and (Quite possibly) some real enemies. That incident got him MEGA attention and on the FRONT PAGE of major news papers. We could be looking at more than 30 nation-wide. Contrary to the comments by another member Quote:- "with minor mentions in many primary sources", you can see that this not the case. He has had amazing coverage. You see Arnold is an activist, politician, social commentator and likely Whistleblower as well. So, after the Reagan incident, as you can see in my post 11:18, 12 October 2016, under Politically after the Reagan incident, he had been in the news he has been attracting attention and getting coverage. And then under And for his activism, he has been in the news. That's only a portion of what is out there and that's just what me one guy has come up with just using a couple of search engines. See Arnold is notable but he is annoying to some people. Like I said, he is the poster-boy for the destruction of one's own political career by being outspoken on certain things, and pursuing the path of activism. Yes Arnold has gone on about the possible dangers of fluoride, Chemtrails, Smart meters, and the New World Order etc But that's what he did and got attention for that. Easy to see that he is notable when you look at the coverage.

I'd also like to add that there is a school of thought held by some that any band that didn't have a charting hit is not notable. I remember once someone saying that Arthur Lee is not notable because he never had any noticeable hits, and "who is the band Love?" Once someone said that a certain artist shouldn't be included on Wikipedia because he falls into the Square category. Lol. There is also an extreme dislike here for people who fall into the conspiracy theory category by a small amount of Wikipedians. Part of the reason is that they have their view on people like Arnold, Mark Dice, Jim Fetzer, Ted Gunderson, Anthony J. Hilder, David Icke, Alex Jones, Jim Marrs, and Webster Tarpley. They think of them as cranks and losers who have nothing better to do than complain. They can't see past this sadly. The thing that they fail to understand is that these people are notable for the coverage that has been given and the influence they have had on others. Right or wrong, they have had an influence. I'm not going to defend the actions of any of these activists or as some refer to as "complainers" / "agitators" / "trouble makers" / "ungrateful scum". One of the reactions to the conspiracy discusser is displayed here ,Sounding Like another Wiki 'Love Piece' which appears on the Webster Tarpley Talk page. I was quite entertained by that. Anyway, I'm getting off track here. Perhaps when the article was started, it should have been made more clear as to where Arnold's notability lies. But, anyone willing to take the time would realize that there is more than enough coverage of Arnold on various levels and different directions, and for more than one event. I'm just reporting on the notability of one activist/politician/social commentator called Gary Richard Arnold. Thanks 10:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So, just so we're clear on your argument strategy here: the Reagan heckling incident doesn't make him a WP:BLP1E because he's notable for other things besides that, but every single thing that's present in the article besides "heckled Ronald Reagan" is just there for supplementary background rather than to actually assist the notability claim. Yeah, no, if you think that's how Wikipedia works then I'm definitely not the one who's "slanting" anything.

And just for the record, the only evidence I can find anywhere on Wikipedia of anybody saying that Arthur Lee's notability was in any way dependent on chart hits is you making up that argument out of thin air as a strawman to argue against in an AFD discussion about a completely unrelated person of not even slightly equivalent notability to Arthur Lee. It's not a thing anybody ever really said for real, or a thing that's in any way reflective of what WP:NMUSIC actually says — it's a red herring argument that you use to try to derail unrelated discussions by trotting it out in irrelevant places just to contradict it. Bearcat (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Bearcat 19:05, 13 October 2016 post. Again you're playing another variation on the same theme. And use of the term "supplementary background" is incorrect and misleading again. You know very well that Arnold attracted major attention for his open accusations against Reagan. This was almost unheard of at the time. A politician who, because of his stance destroyed his own career because of his inability to keep silent on certain issues. This caused ripples all around and got Arnold into the media. Arnold's continued crusade be it right or wrong against what he sees as nepotism, corruption, and betrayal of the people of the United States has been covered. He has had enough coverage to make him notable. Even if the amount of news articles were to be halved, he'd still be notable. You're appear to be ignoring the obvious. His other activities are much much more than "supplementary background". They are covered by major news sources!
It would appear that you are using that Arnold, Reagan Incident as a type of leverage to support your case for deletion by making out that this is all the Arnold page has. Well it's not all. You know it and so do I! To some folks who stop by to read here, your use of the term "supplementary background" may seem like you're being deliberately misleading in your desperate quest to have this article deleted. I'd still like to think that you're innocently charging in erroneously and somewhat naive about these things. It is getting harder to hold that view friend.
Quote:- "And just for the record, the only evidence I can find anywhere on Wikipedia of anybody saying that Arthur Lee's notability was in any way dependent on chart hits is you making up that argument out of thin air". ..... You walked right into that one didn't you!! ...... 1. I didn't say that it was on Wikipedia. And 2 I'm NOT making it up. I am referring to youngish somewhat naïve person who hasn't got a clue about real life. This person because they didn't really know who Arthur Lee was had no idea of his status and influence. I've come across a few of "these types" in my travels. Some of them on Wikipedia. Did you see this one ((Sounding Like another Wiki 'Love Piece')) which is about Webster Tarpley ? Sadly people who have lived sheltered lives sometimes end up behind the keyboard. Karl Twist (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not being "naive" or "misleading" here; I'm responding, exactly correctly, to exactly the things you're saying. If I argue that the Reagan incident just makes him a BLP1E, then you insist that he has notability for other things besides that incident alone — but whenever I point out, entirely correctly, that everything else besides the Reagan incident fails our notability rules entirely for one reason or another, you respond that those things aren't there to show notability but merely as additional information about somebody who already satisfied our notability criteria before those things were taken into account. It's all right there in your own words: when I said that the Reagan incident makes him a BLP1E, you specifically stated that "ran as a candidate for office", "worked with a city council committee" and "appeared in the media as a conspiracy theorist" stood as further evidence of notability for more than just the Reagan incident — but the moment I addressed why those things don't constitute evidence of notability, you flipped your argument to "they're just there for background information, not as a basic notability claim". So, in other words, even in your own comments the question of whether those things speak to notability or not depends solely on which way you have to present those things in order to contradict whatever comment you happen to be replying to in that moment. I'm sorry, but you're the one who doesn't understand how notability and sourcing work on Wikipedia, not me. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an overly detailed vanity page filled with information of very minor significance, such as "City of Watsonville Council Meetings". This looks like a project of love, but unfortunately for the article advocates, the subject does not quite rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to K.e.Coffman post 05:27, 14 October 2016. Quote:- "Delete as an overly detailed vanity page filled with information of very minor significance" - I'd be interested to know how you think "vanity" comes into it? Quote: - "filled with information of very minor significance, such as "City of Watsonville Council Meetings" - Council meetings is only a very small section here and out of the more than 100 refs, there are only about 10 that apply to the council meetings. Quote: - "This looks like a project of love" - I find it quite intriguing that you would bring that up. Why do you say that? By the way, have you read the 19 or 20 articles from major newspapers about Arnold before, during and after the Arnold, Reagan Incident? They are at Revision as of 11:28, 12 October 2016. There is quite a bit of coverage on Arnold and some solid articles. And there's more. Thanks for your input but I think you've missed a bit here. Karl Twist (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:TNT, WP:NOTWEBHOST, WP:COAT, and WP:MILL. Even if he passed WP:GNG, this is nothing more than soap-boxing: calling out on the Internet for one's Platonic ideals. It's so terribly bad as to require a re-write from scratch. It's clearly just using us, a charity, to push a political agenda by way of a BLP, which places our tax-exempt status in the sights of the evil IRS. He is not so prolific as a perennial candidate as to be notable for that alone. He's just one of tens of thousands of failed local candidates still alive today. FWIW, I voted for Reagan in 1984, and all the Democratic candidates for President since. #Imwithher. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW delete, and I will salt to protect against re-creation. DGG ( talk ) 07:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coby Browser[edit]

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

Still fails notability. No substantial encyclopaedic content. Previously deleted 3 times for various reasons. Rather than fuss over correct criteria, I thought I'd bring it here and get consensus, so we can just G4 any recreations until it's worthy. Adam9007 (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as WP:NOTADVERTISING, the article creator TurboProgramming is most likely the maker of this software, a gsearch of Turboprogramming brings up this: listing the website as http://turboprogramming.blogspot.com which in turn brings up this Arda Çebi - Blog who is stated in the article as the software developer. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt now please, this has been deleted three times and this is simply yet another blatant attempt of advertising. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks sources (and coverage - nearly no Google hits!), has promotional language and contains some weird phrases (maybe only weak English language skills?). Pavlor (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt apart from the article reading like an advertisement, I can't even find unreliable sources, let alone reliable ones - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt yet another iteration of this blatant advertising. I have trouble imagining this will meet WP:NSOFT any time soon, and as this is the fourth attempt at creating the article, I don't think the author is getting the point. PGWG (talk) 13:20, 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. Tone 15:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Montz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Montz is the mayor of a city with less than 20,000 people. This is far to small for the mayor to be default notable. The coverage in the Toledo Blade and other local papers is the level of coverage that is given to almost all elected mayors, far below the level we need to justify having an article in an encyclopedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:POLITICIAN. Routine coverage in local press doesn't push him over the WP:GNG threshold. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another NN small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 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 merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. Tone 15:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parrafaire[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Naga (Dungeons & Dragons) or List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Naga (Dungeons & Dragons) as the more specific merge target. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 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 A9. (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblegum (The Fevers album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:26, 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. Having looked on Google News there's tons of sources that can be added, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoots the Owl[edit]

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

This character article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of news coverage mentions this character and associated music. Without posting a ton of links, what makes you think, TTN, that this cannot be improved to demonstrate GNG in the article? Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're seeing something I'm not, the results in the above searches show minor mentions in relation to the character's role in the show. There is nothing there to meet the criteria of significant coverage necessary to establish notability, and there is certainly nothing that could be used in the article. TTN (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "You've gotta put down the saxaphone if you want to squeak your duckie.". Andrew D. (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. No joke: TTN couldn't see critical commentary of George Orwell's fiction a while back. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do love how often you bring that up despite how many times I've explained it to you. You seem to want to characterize me as if I commited some great sin in daring to want to merge bunch of irrelevant pages together. The characters themselves are not independently notable in the conventional sense rather than the Wikipedia sense. Analysis of the characters is not based on the merit of the characters, but rather simply the analysis of the overall symbolism of the story. As the characters are simply part of that analysis, they don't require any actual articles to simply regurgitate the same information over and over again. Any plot information and symbolism will easily be able to be discussed in the main article or a split off article for like "analysis of Animal Farm" or some such. My argument is based more on the issue of weight rather than notability. On a more related topic to this discussion, the person you're referencing has not provided an actual rationale based in fact, so your argument and the ones above should not be given any actual value. Despite that, for whatever reason this article will be kept, not improved, and then eventually deleted after people who are not so biased eventually comment on it. TTN (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that all literary character are "irrelevant" is Yahooism at its most puerile. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you characterize me as if I literally do not want a single article on fiction. These characters in particular are just pure symbolism without any other relevant characteristics. The articles in their current state are mostly trash and the articles in their best state would simply be the same exact content you'd find in the main article in its best state. They are simply part of the larger topic that is the analysis of Animal Farm, and it is very doubtful that any of them would have enough relevant content to require articles for that reason. They were merged through a proper discussion, and I really should have pushed to have that consensus enforced back then. You seem like you would be offended by the very thought that there are very likely irrelevant Shakespeare characters that probably don't need articles. TTN (talk) 19:29, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Australian cricket season[edit]

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

Declined PROD. There is need for a combined article - as in previous years, all these results are sufficiently covered in the articles in Category:2016–17 Australian cricket season. This article merely reduplicates that. Also, the article exhibits confusion about what the season includes - for example, it includes the away series in South Africa, which is not part of the Australian cricket season. St Anselm (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a stand-alone article that's not part of an established series which duplicates all the information contained in other articles. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed, this duplicates several articles and is unnecessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:28, 16 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 (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LiveProcess[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotional. No external references Rathfelder (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article regarding which the 2006 AfD made plain the editing involvement of people associated with the company, and where subsequent editing by other accounts has added plainly promotional text ("earned the trust", "achieving an unprecedented level", "we listened", etc.): there should be Connected Contributor declarations on the Talk page but isn't. The promotional text could be pruned by normal editing, of course, but what then would be left beyond a basic statement that the company is in business? My own searches are locating a stream of routine announcements, but that is simply as befits any company that is doing business. I am not seeing anything to indicate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of those terrible "Keep because it's important" decisions so common with AfDs ten years ago, I'm seeing nothing myself save for routine casual mentions. Ravenswing 23:33, 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 delete (G5) by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Anup [Talk] 20:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She (2015 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. The subject, Pinki Pramanik, is notable but this film about a period in her life isn't. A few websites mentioned the film when it was in production, but there's nothing about it after its release (over a year ago). Fails WP:NOTFILM. Yintan 18:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note I've deleted the article under CSD#G5 criteria as it was created by a confirmed sock.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:45, 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. Sole keep !vote is not addressing the concerns about notability and the like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZenQ[edit]

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

PROD boldly removed by someone who I presume is from the company and I still confirm this PROD since it also emphasized the obvious advertising intentions and actions of this article, and this random IP's actions confirm it. SwisterTwister talk 18:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERT & WP:NCORP Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whoa, firstly I'm not "from the company". Secondly I have no idea what the rest of that sentence means (try English maybe?). Apart from the baseless COI accusations against me and the article creator, you have made ZERO policy-based arguments for the deletion of this article. I happened to notice that you have PROD'ed quite a few articles in the last few days, some of which have been DEPROD'ed and rightly so. Your PROD'ing spree appears to be disruptive to the project. 1.39.61.211 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, simply stating that sources exist when I have explicitly counted and analyzed then to be PR, is therefore not applicable. Also, the fact this was so boldly removed with "presumptive and absurd" nomination was questionable in itself. My PROD explicitly stated that everything here is PR and searches are finding the same, it's all either what the company wants to advertise about itself or what the company published itself. Next, continuing personal attacks of me and this nomination are not convincing. Bring an obvious advertisement and removing is exactly the best interests of this encyclopedia, regardleds of what your thoughts of thid nomination or me are. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of news coverage not from a PR push - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspaper articles/sources mostly covers trivial matters. The coverage is not wide enough to warrant a stand alone article and it fails the notability test as per WP:CORP vivek7de--tAlK 18:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-Notable yet. Many companies like this are in operations. Coverage is nothing "Serious" or in-depth in nature. Even they are from Big Media Companies. Light2021 (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable yet. Numerous companies like this are operating. The coverage is not wide enough to warrant a stand alone article and it fails the notability test as per WP:CORP.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 14:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a WP:PROMO article on an unremarkable company. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 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 as a copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TJY[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are mostly own web site, social media and a hurricane web-site!. Fails WP:GNG. Coming straight to AfD as author habitually removed CSD tags from self created pages Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7 but you should've been restored it. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No indications of notability, nor any assertions of notability made in the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 19:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:26, 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) 05:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lonestar Soccer Club[edit]

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

Not a notable club. Not a professional team and does not meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Holds training camps with clubs like Manchester United and AS Roma, and is obviously prestigious, but not really enough to push through WP:GNG. If someone could provide a list of players who played for the club and are now Tier-1 footballers who play in pro leagues and the list is substantual, it could pass in a similar way to Senrab F.C., but i can't even find one notable footballer who had association with the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 07:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to have any coverage from independent reliable sources Spiderone 20:50, 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 Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Whatsupgold[edit]

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

recreation of WhatsUp Gold, a page deleted four times and persistently recreated; since the original page title is locked, they've gone with this one instead. Needless to say, still not seeing significant coverage. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted and Salted under G4 - David Gerard (talk) 22:51, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Orelias[edit]

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

Promotional article with no evidence of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSBIO. The one RS fails verification. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20s a Difficult Age, created by the same SPA. David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheKaphox T 15:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. Why are the 1,000 other articles without any sources not being checked?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShopArt (talk • contribs) 16:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I'm not finding, which was a given, and none of this is actually convincing as they are simply his own listings cited as sources. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sooo the news sources cited are not credible? Come on — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShopArt (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not even close to the one being asked to be deleted citation or information wise, the person clearly was using it to promote themselves as a wiki page should. There are many indie label, authors etc I've seen who have pages without credible sources at all. There are people who are doing fantastic work who deserve Wiki pages to increase opportunities. We all have to start somewhere. Delete it if you must but it's a waste of time because this artist will be relevant in a matter of months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShopArt (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment same SPA created Marcus orelias last year which was A7ed, both titles would need salting. Also removed the AFD notice twice, has been warned - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was last year this is this year, I felt there were more sources, this is dumb like I said if you're going to delete it then delete it but this article has over 41 articles that support the artist and people mentioned in the article. Also what should be "deleted" is subjective and based on personal taste of the people reviewing it can be biased because most of the younger generation making noise in music are not in the head lines 24/7 so this judging process is unfair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheShopArt (talk • contribs) 23:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find reliable sources after searching quite deeply. Fails NACTOR. Fails MUSBIO. Fails GNG, BASIC. Lourdes 13:55, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vj Jenny O[edit]

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

subject fails GNG and NMEDIA as a media person —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to delete redirects -- VJ Jenny O. and Vj jenny o -- as well. Quis separabit? 14:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, also copyvio in the linked video material. (citations and links removed) ronaz ^Talk! 17:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has received Nigerian press coverage as a television presenter and as a singer, references in article, passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Search results bring up press release about her songs and music video appearances from blog-like music outlets which I think is not enough to establish notability.—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper sources in the article seem reliable. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are press releases from primary and non-independent websites except this one on Vanguard—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306. Stanleytux (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above 'Keep' arguments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NMEDIA states the depth of sources has to be considered. There is a certain lack of depth in sources used in this article. ronaz ^Talk! 18:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digital penetration in Nigeria is pretty low compared to other developed countries. Many national media houses even find it hard to maintain their online identity. I believe there is sufficient coverage for this article to remain. Never heard or listened to her songs though, she is probably a C-grade/list musician in Nigeria. Darreg (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point taken, can't say I agree with the lack of digital penetration. But what about the copyright violations in the linked video? ronaz ^Talk! 18:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get to see the video, not that it will make much difference though, my understanding of AFD is that it is meant to ascertain if an article is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, and not really about if there are copyright violations really. My !vote was strictly based on the references I was able to find on her, not about the state of the article. Darreg (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't a vote, so copyright violations do matter. :) ronaz ^Talk! 10:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "votes". What I do know from my experience here is that consensus is guaged based on number of superior arguments and not just a "majority vote". Darreg (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the same thing :) ronaz ^Talk! 15:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: copyright vios; mostly OR and publicity-pushing. Don't forget VJ Jenny O. and Vj jenny o as well. Quis separabit? 14:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per keep votes. Darreg (talk) 13:06, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RuleTheWiki (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full results for the Australian federal election, 1998[edit]

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

Do we really need a separate page for this? The tally results are perfectly explained on the Australian federal election, 1998 page and this page is mainly just full of stats for all minor parties with Wikipedia:Notability being called into question, along with that, there are no same pages for other federal elections. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 17:12, 23 September 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 September 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contrary to the nominator's assertion, while 2001 merges in the full results, every subsequent election (2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016) has had at least two results subpages, one for House of Reps and one for Senate. A Merge would be arguable in this case, but would make Australian federal election, 1998 less clear, and an eventual re-split would be likely. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:10, 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, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reconstitute, split and rename in line with federal results pages as outlined by Hydronium Hydroxide above. Frickeg (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt Frickeg's suggestion ("Reconstitute, split and rename in line with federal results pages as outlined by Hydronium Hydroxide above.") Quis separabit? 14:51, 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 redirect to Luebbering, Missouri. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Friedrich Lübbering[edit]

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

Delete: Subject was the postmaster of an unincorporated community. Surely this wasn't a notable enough position to merit a Wikipedia article. – Gilliam (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a postmaster is not a plausible claim of notability. I had an uncle who was a World War II veteran, a small town race car driver, and later the postmaster of a much larger town than this. He was a wonderful guy, but not notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Deleting the article would delete yet another piece of American history. I stand by my argumentation of 2009; "[…] The US is a country of immigrants. […] Mostly, reasons are not known - In this case, we know that a series of famines forced the Luebbering family to emigrate, and settle at a place which was named after them. JFL fought for the union and the State of Mississippi. He left the army a 2nd lieutenant - he helped make the US big, he is what the US stands for, a self made man who fights for what he believes is right .... He should not get deleted, even though the article is a little too genealogical. I am hoping for more editors to complete it." He was the first postmaster in the hamlet which was later named after him. Back in 2009, the article also received the blessing and support of the The State Historical Society of Missouri. I do not believe this article should be deleted for the reasons mentioned above. Wikipedia is also about heritage. This window into something long gone offers an opportunity for generations to learn about their local history. Deleting this article deprives future generations of exactly this. I plead for "not delete". LordFarrow (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)LordFarrow[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A person who had a hamlet after himself will have been at the time of his life the type of person we consider 'notable' in the wikisense as this event alone would have been reported on in the wider area. This does not compare with the postmaster mentioned above of ca 80 years later. Strangely enough in 1888 we had no internet so we won't have easy access to papers at the time. Agathoclea (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think some miss the point. It is not on the basis that he is an immigrant, nor a postmaster, nor a union veteran, nor even a military officer, but upon the fact that his legacy survives him when the hamlet named after him, which exists to this day, is spoken. Based on the fact that a town was named after him, he becomes notable. Jsniessen (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having a small, unincoprorated place named after you is not grounds for being considered notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentative, but since the town is notable, the topic and the edit history stay, notable or not, as per our policies. Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum or keep Notability is not a deletion argument here, so the discussion should be taken to the forum identified by WP:Deletion policy for such discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, I'm curious. How is AfD the wrong forum for deleting an article? And what forum should this have been taken to? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at just over 50 words the community of Luebbering, Missouri needs all the help it can get, if this was deleted a paragraph could be added there. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The community named for this person, Luebbering, Missouri, seems to have a limited existence at best, given that it is not incorporated nor is a census-designated place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think with all things added together, he just about squeezes through WP:GNG. However, WP:MERCY, WP:VALUABLE and WP:HARDWORK are not arguments. Also is the grandfather of an Olympic athelete, as mentioned on his article — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a brief summary to Luebbering, Missouri. The man's main claim to fame appears to be being a pstmaster, which is surely a case of bring NN. However it will be worth the article on the place explaining briefly the source of its name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This smells like a vanity project to me. I don't see general notability and notability is not inherited from a town or a descendant or anything else. I promise you new editors that selfishly using Wikipedia for your pet project is just going to create hostility here. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. having a hamlet named after oneself is meaningless for notability -- , but it is still apppropriate to have a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Being the first postmaster of a hamlet doesn't make a subject notable. At best this is a BIO1E. Personally I would have liked this to be deleted. However, I am willing to go with a redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough to pass general notability requirements. There appears to be sock puppet-like arguments here in order to "help" the town. This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Delta13C (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as the creator and sole author has been confirmed as a block-evading sockpuppet. Hut 8.5 21:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anirudh Sethi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and also has WP:PROMO/WP:NPOV issues. Subject isn't mentioned in any of the references that aren't self-published. My own searches only turned up this, which at best counts as WP:1E. Kolbasz (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and even the self-sourced references don't support the claims (e.g. the claim of "seven books" links to the existence of one) - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is a sockpuppet investigation going on against the creator of this article. GSS (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any references to Sethi in the first two links. The first link is part of the contributors platform of Huffington Post, which is entirely controlled by the contributor, and thus is a blog without any editorial oversight. Thus it is not a reliable source, but it also does not mention Sethi as far as I can tell.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As per nom. Doesn't qualify WP:NOTE Badnaam (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and Salt as this has been deleted twice before within close times of each other, clearly advertising and this alone, considering the same articles have contained the same exact contents each time. There is nothing to suggest actual substance here because none exists. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this WP:PROMO piece. There are some coverage in WP:INDAFD search engine, here but they do not appear sufficient to help subject reach the GNG standard. Anup [Talk] 10:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for WP:INDAFD, I wasn't previously aware of that - David Gerard (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor references, some of which don't even mention Sethi and the remaining are either from Sethi or blatantly promotional. Nothing to indicate notability to pass GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 12:53, 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 Speedy Keep (Nomination withdrawn). Closing as K.e.coffman has withdrawn the nomination. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from the Netherlands[edit]

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

I withdraw the nomination. // Appears to be an indiscriminate collection of information and / or a link farm, with no additional meaningful information provided. Given the amount of red links, the category Category:Dutch musical groups is much more useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list with clear inclusion criteria for notable subjects. If cleanup is required, then remove the redlinks. Note that lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could certainly be improved, but how can a list with criteria of 'notable band' and 'from the Netherlands' be classed as 'indiscriminate'? The 'category is better' argument doesn't wash. Sources certainly available, e.g. [46], [47], [48]. --Michig (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Dutch musical groups and subcategories therein. The article can be copy edited to refine it a bit, and red links can be removed, or if reliable sources that suggest notability for some of the red-linked bands are available, references can be added, which facilitates the creation of new articles about notable topics as per WP:REDLINK.

This article also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per WP:LISTPURP. WP:LISTPURP is satisfied in part by comparing page view statistics. This article has been viewed 3,602 times in the last 90 days, whereas the Dutch musical groups category page has only been viewed 390 times in the last 90 days. The article itself is of more interest and more useful for Wikipedia's readers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list certainly needs cleanup, but NorthAmerica1000 is correct that lists are not automatically deemed to duplicate categories: there are situations where a list and a category rightly should both exist to complement each other. For example, Dutch musical groups are not all filed directly in Category:Dutch musical groups, but rather many are subcategorized by genre, city or province — which means that if you don't already know what genre a band is in and/or what particular part of the Netherlands they're from, you're going to have a hard time finding it through the category system. And accordingly, the list is the only available method of "one-stop shopping" all Dutch bands in one place. The list should definitely be pruned for redlinks — lists of bands are one of those topics where there's an exceptionally high risk of non-notable garage bands who will never have a Wikipedia article adding themselves to the list anyway as a form of self-promotion, so the list should rightly have tight inclusion criteria (e.g. only bluelinks, or redlinks permitted only if supported by a notability-showing source...although the latter is fairly easy to game with fake or non-RS references, especially when the "sources" are likely to be in a language that most users of en can't actually read, and thus may not be the best option here) — but needing cleanup is not a deletion reason in and of itself. If our category system were structured differently than it is, then lists might become redundant, but with the category system we do have they're not. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 Randykitty (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sahibzada Feroz Nizami[edit]

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

There appears to me

no English earlship associated with Runwell
no notable living person - please take note of WP:BLP in responses - of the name "Feroz Nizami". Shirt58 (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Feroz Nizami created by same editor. 220 of ^Borg 09:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete even if the unsourced content is true, notability can't be inherited. The only fact about him is that he lives in Pakistan, which isn't notable Jimfbleak (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up mainly facebook pages, did find this - Nizams of Hyderabad History where he appears at place no. 49 under 'Second and subsequent generations', so he may be related to Nizam of Hyderabad, but as stated above WP:NOTINHERITED, also there is probably a WP:COI issue, as the article creator is Feroz Nizami, who has also created an similar article on his grandfather (no. 47 on the Nizam relative list). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 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. per SK1 - Nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Smallwood[edit]

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

doesn't seem to make NAUTHOR, NACADEMIC or GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How does it not make those guidelines with these sources? The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as several editors have worked on the article, and there is still litte evidence of siginificant acknowledgment in secondary sources. She is in a couple of directories. The poetry awards are small time. The simple fact is that there is almost no general interest whatsoever in her as an author. This is a vanity page, edited extensively by Carol Smallwood.104.163.139.13 (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found multiple reviews of her work on EBSCO and HighBeam. I've been adding sources to the article. The reviews make her article pass NAUTHOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thanks Megalibrarygirl for making notability more clear. Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Hmlarson (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Latest version meets NAUTHOR. Binksternet (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - with thanks to Megalibrarygirl for her improvements. Now if we can only keep the subject of the article away from it..... John from Idegon (talk) 15:50, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Belton Bonsall[edit]

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

Possibly written by a relative, or someone who knew him personally, but this article is completely unsourced. The only thing I can find online is a funeral notice in a local newspaper. There are no claims in this article of him being particularly notable, and no evidence online of any wider notability e.g. books, newspaper obits. Fails WP:GNG, time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My searches are finding a few online sale items but nothing that could met WP:ARTIST or broader WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly COI-dominated hagiography; dubious notability as ARTIST. Quis separabit? 14:40, 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Win Zin Oo[edit]

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

I can find zero evidence that this player has played in a WP:FPL or a senior international match and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. Also, even if Oo has made an appearance or two in a FPL he wouldn't be notable as he fails WP:GNG, due to absolutely no reliable and in-depth coverage, and such failure overrides NFOOTY. This is similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yan Naing Oo. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A lack of evidence that the player even exists means total failures of both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Joseph2302 08:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor can sources be provided (or found based on my search) that he has played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 11:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes NFOOTY because he has played for Zayar Shwe Myay F.C. in the Myanmar National League, which is listed as fully professional. English-language sources include the Myanmar Times June 2016 (he's the one in the yellow shirt in the picture) and Yangon United's website March 2016, which lists him in the starting eleven and advises us where we could have watched the match on TV. The article suggests he played 18 ~~23 (don't know where 23 came from)~~ matches for that club; if he did, then that's a full season, not just "an appearance or two". But the point of a subject-specific notability guideline is to allow time to improve an article to meet GNG. To delete an article despite the subject demonstrably meeting the subject-specific guideline, because a few editors decide that "absolutely no reliable and in-depth coverage" exists in a language and a script none of us can read, would do this encyclopedia no favours. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I take your point but I must point out that WP:NSPORT, in bold, says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.". The Yangon United's website source looks like WP:ROUTINE to me (and has just a passing mention of Oo) and the Myanmar Times article doesn't mention him at all except in a picture caption. NSPORT also says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which I think applys here. In the end GNG is the be-all and end all. Also WP:MUSTBESOURCES. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No-one's arguing MUSTBESOURCES: sources have been produced to pass NFOOTY. I've added them to the article, and now it (as well as this AfD) demonstrates the subject's satisfaction of "the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth" at NSPORT... I highlight the important word in that sentence: sources have to be produced to satisfy one or the other, not necessarily both. No-one's suggesting those sources attempt to demonstrate GNG; they don't. Subject-specific guidelines are set at a level where "it is likely that sufficient sources exist" to satisfy GNG; it says so at WP:NSPORT, the sentence after the one you cite. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough Struway2 and thanks for this. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As there are now sources verifying that he has played in a FPL. Joseph2302 12:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - due to the new revelation made Spiderone 16:54, 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. No salting, as David Gerard suggested that good sourcing may justify having an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Owais Raza Qadri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted once before last year and that was not even 11 months ago, showing the persistence of starting this article again but yet, not only actually improving it, but resubmitting the same therefore please Delete and Salt; nothing at all to suggest we would accept this. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete per nom (though I'm willing to be convinced if good sourcing shows up). Note that this is vastly better than the text of the version previously AFDed - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If these three lines plus an infobox are "vastly better" than previously, then the previous version must have been an absolute horror. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was really quite remarkable and nearly G1 material. This is at least shaped a bit like an article - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Still lacks WP:GNG's independent sourcing. Actually, why was this not G4ed or A7ed before coming to AfD? --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Just a few lines cited by the subject's own website, and the versions of this article on Sindhi and Urdu Wikipedia are the same. The article shouldn't have been recreated in the first place since what was said at the first AfD still applies here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:37, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gates of Hell (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Best Way, the publisher. There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of the game in reliable sources. I tried a few variations of search terms, including publisher, developer, and "men of war", which is a previous game the Wikipedia article references. A redirection will preserve the content for when this is released and (hopefully) becomes notable. I guess deletion is alright, too, but the publisher will probably attract a few reviews based on their previous titles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 26 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, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons outlined by User:NinjaRobotPirate above. However, I don't think it would be a particularly useful redirect, as it's not a very likely search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - The article as it stands doesn't have much content worth preserving, so in the event that the game achieves notability, I think it would be better to start over and create a new article based on independent sources.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 18:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per OP, insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:24, 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) 05:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laos at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG notability and WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 15:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and WP:NOTSTATS. Let's call this Statscruft. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:40, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt Bike Maniacs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Menna van Praag[edit]

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

Self-published author with minimal secondary coverage. Blackguard 06:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- withdrawing for now given evidence below - David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of published reviews of her works (which are published at at least by Penguin; see here); see here, here, here and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingumeister (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Penguin is something. The first is a user-generated site, the second is a blog, the third is user-generated ... do we have any reviews in RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not user-generated. They aren't written by notable authors, but I don't see why that's a problem. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 22:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft instead because she is in fact notable, considering over 3,600 library holdings and they were by a major publisher, that in itself is sufficient, the sourcing will have to be improved, however. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep -- is NY Journal of Books RS? link to review. If yes, may work towards satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. Unless I'm mistaken, Ballantine Books is not being self-published. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Pingumeister and coffman's comments and sources. Lourdes 13:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. sufficient library holdings and reviews. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to ACCO Brands. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 13:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Computer Products Group[edit]

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

I declined an A7 speedy deletion nomination because the article provides a valid, albeit promotional-sounding, claim of significance, but source searches are not demonstrating that the company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ACCO Brands would suffice here I think. The Kensington lock is notable and has its own article. There doesn't appear to be much to say about this entity that isn't already covered in the ACCO article. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lock is indeed more notable than the company, a rather unusual situation--the rest of the ir products are minor accessories, but that particular one became a standard. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ACCO Brands to avoid recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from nominator): I am fine with a redirect to ACCO Brands. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 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) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Googe[edit]

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

Recently created BLP with only one source - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because, though there is widespread coverage about her use of a possible copyright infringement with her campaign logo, it has scant biographical info. This article has clearly been written because she is standing for US Congree at the moment. Let's bin it for now and see whether she gets elected. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only has this been absolutely bombarded with PR affects and users, but the contents are exactly that, and that's why it's not surprising there's no actual substance, because those were not the intentions here, PR was. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NPOL as still only a candidate, fails anybio as WP:BLP1E on the Google stuff. John from Idegon (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL if we discount the usual coverage and in any case this is a BLP1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:39, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rain (Dragon song)[edit]

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

No indication of Notability per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Unreferenced. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it had peaked at number 2 and spent 26 weeks on a national chart that would certainly be an indication of notability, but this and this suggest that didn't happen. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- australian-charts.com is a terrible source that doesn't seem to include the Kent Music Report, which was the mainstream chart for many years. IME it's actively unhelpful - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard: just a comment, but the Hung Medien chart websites depend on being able to license the information from various chart companies in each country... some countries are complete, others are only allowed to reproduce charts from that particular country within a certain timeframe. I don't know what the situation is with the Kent Music Report charts: I imagine David Kent wants to keep the information off the net so that as many people as possible buy his books. Richard3120 (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A note to this effect should probably be added to WP:BADCHARTS - David Gerard (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Record_charts#the_problem_with_australian-charts.com re this problem - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what the hell, this hit #2 in Australia, was in the charts for ages and was #15 best seller of the year. See List of Top 25 singles for 1983 in Australia. Source for that article is David Kent's Australian Chart Book 1970-1992. Also Billboard Hot 100 #88 - David Gerard (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Dragon discography#Singles. Chart placing is legit, but with so little sourced content, a redirect is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC) Actually, a redirect from this title would be pretty useless, an entry at Rain (disambiguation) would suffice unless sources beyond chart positions can be found that could be used to usefully expand the article. --Michig (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Would prefer discography redirect, but either is fine if we have 0 sources about the song. (The sources will definitely exist ... on paper ... in Australia.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added sources to the article confirming the charting... Interested editors can add content about the song from the sources I've added. Lourdes 13:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't believe the new sources give much scope for expansion, but thank you for finding them. I have no objection to it being kept. --Michig (talk) 18:10, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco José da Silva Couto[edit]

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

It was deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese. It does not seem to be notable. Several sources are unreliable (My Heritage Blog "Free University of Juá") The ones which do are reliable are either official diary (it does not any show notability because any Run-of-the-mill bureacrat has his/her name published in the official diary when he/she is hired, gets promoted, etc) or are about the relatives (the source mentions the name of the person who is from the family but does not show that that he/she is related to Francisco José da Silva Couto, i. e. WP:OR). There is the claim that the family's house was donated for the purpose of installing a school but the sources only mentions the school, but not that the building was donated by his family, i. e. WP:OR. It was mentioned that there is a place named after him but google maps at best only shows that there is a place named "coronel Couto" not that it was named after him (and Couto is a pretty common sur name in Brazil it may be named after another Colonel), i. e. WP:OR. Bilhauano (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and SALT: has to go. This is basically a family tree/genealogy masquerading as an article. Quis separabit? 14:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackmann08 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the proposal for deletion. Many new references and some photos were added to the short biography of Francisco José da Silva Couto, including the reference to the book of MACATRÃO (2009): "Casarões do Brejo & Outros Pontos" (Big Houses of Brejo & Other Sites"), which are probably sufficient to give the required credibility to the contents of the text. By the way, it is necessary to clarify that My Heritage genealogic trees have, similarly to Wikipedia, their own systematic way of crosschecking the information inserted, named SmartMatch, by comparing the many genealogic trees added by different people in their data bank and asking for the cross confirmation. Sethemanuel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was looking for the book using ISBN search of the National Library of Brazil and I couldn't find the book (I was looking for the book using the title, name of the author and publisher). It seems that the "book" does not even have a ISBN. In any case, it seems that the book is about the house not about Francisco José da Silva Couto (WP:NOTINHERITED). In addition to these, you say that My Heritage is like Wikipedia, but Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Blog is not a reliable source. Bilhauano (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT: not notable, trivia and WP:Memorial applies. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Christopher[edit]

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

An unreferenced essay on an unremarkable singer/songwriter. Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. No RS listed nor available to confirm notability. Article created by user Special:Contributions/Spikedpunch69 with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom I couldn't find anything either. Lots of coverage of other people of the same name, though - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BuildZoom[edit]

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

My extensive PROD removed with the completely thin and unconvincing basis of "sources exist", but none of it is actually substantial and this is as blatant as an advertisement it could ever be. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: Your complaint about my deprod reason is unhelpful. How about you trim this to focus on your delete reason and we'll go from there. ~Kvng (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom sources are mostly PR fluff and passing mentions, no evidence of actual notability - David Gerard (talk) 10:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam & non-encyclopedic trivia ("Using Tinder to catch a burglar", really?) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 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. Mkdw ^talk 04:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Demetriades[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability "was involved in" setting a notable standard does not mean anything in particular. Noevidence his companies are notable. None of the sources have significang information about him. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - nothing actually about the subject - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as PR in every aspect and method; from the professional photo, to the Q&A and interviewed sources to the specifics about his businesses and career, this is an advertisement and it's nothing else otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable person. Is widely quoted, but the sources are directory listings (not in-depth), interviews (not independent), casual mentions, or routine coverage (boat racing). As the founder of several non-notable companies, and peripherally involved in notable companies, there is nothing about the topic that seems to otherwise indicate worthiness of encyclopedic notice. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:41, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K-Rab[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one notable production credit; likely fails WP:BAND. Most of the sources in the article are trivial or not reliable. Last AFD closed as no consensus after multiple relists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being a producer to a charting item would be convincing for significant and perhaps nearly for notability, but not in this case since there are still questionable intentions about PR, and therefore as such, it's delete since there's then also honestly nothing for his own substance, chart put aside. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ahaha, actually it doesn't unless there's RSes actually about the subject. (This has come up in producer AFDs a lot, and the general consensus has been that notability is not inheritable in this sort of case, we need actual sources about the subject at least, and you might be surprised that in general nobody bothers actually noting the producer except in passing.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:34, 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 speedy delete. Author requested deletion (diff). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ROH Press[edit]

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

Appears to fail NCORP and the GNG, with a lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Northamerica1000: Why? Qwfp (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

@Qwfp: Just a guess, but he probably saw the "London, Canada" and mistook for "London, England". I almost did until I double checked. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as nothing for actual independent notability apart from simply mentioning other people and things, I'm not finding better, so there's therefore nothing for a convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 03:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, with regards to notability: ROH Press is unique in the products they publish. We do not just publish books in the public domain. We are the only publishing house that publishes English translations of Mr Salgari's work. Our publications are also used in research. I have added two journal articles and 6 books that cite ROH Press publications. I have also added newspaper stories and online book reviews of ROH Press titles. Wikipedia currently has 7 pages dedicated to ROH Press titles. ROH Press is pretty much the only publisher introducing Mr. Salgari's work to an English speaking audience; the content on the Emilio Salgari page was either written by me or taken from the ROH Press website. :) If there is information that you would like to see on this page, please advise. SwisterTwister commented on the page about ten minutes after I had started creating it...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 06:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Hello. If you're going to do a free image search , search for ROH Press Salgari. If you're going to do a books search, please type in ROH Press Salgari on any of the Amazon, B&N etc. sites. Otherwise you are not getting a fair representation of our book list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Has there been any third-party coverage in sources that pass WP:RS actually about your company? - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's an article from La Stampa: one of Italy's most famous newspapers. ROH Press is mentioned in the first paragraph. http://www.lastampa.it/2010/04/19/cultura/libri/salgari-sandokan-tradottonella-lingua-delle-tigri-di-mompracem-nHeAzc4dcGPz8cWNYqJVxI/pagina.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's an article from Italy Magazine: http://www.italymagazine.com/featured-story/book-week-sandokan-tigers-mompracem
    - I listed several journals and published books that cite our publications. The work is also cited here: http://www.iperstoria.it/vecchiosito/httpdocs//?p=125
    - Classics for Pleasure by Michael Dirda has a short review of the ROH Press title Mathias Sandorf.
    - Julia Eccleshare's 1001 Children's Books You Must Read Before You Grow Up contains a review and recommendation for the Tigers of Mompracem as does Peter Boxall's 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die
    - Lucy Daniel’s also includes a write up in Defining Moments in Books: The Greatest Books, Writers, Characters, Passages and Events that Shook the Literary World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 12:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. There is no substantive coverage of this press from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I checked on Google, Bing, Google News, Google Newspaper Archive, Google Books and Highbeam and found nothing of substance. The La Stampa article name-checks the press once, but this only indicates that the press exists; it does not go to notability. /wiae /tlk 13:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the La Stampa article states that the ROH Press novel The Pirates of Malaysia was used as the base for the translation by the Malaysian publisher. A ROH product was used to create a product in another language in another country. Notable enough to make national news in Italy, both print and television. There would not have been a Malay translation if not for the English version.
- Other Texts
- Rizzoli: http://www.accademiadrosselmeier.com/invito_NY_rizzoli.pdf
- DePauw university: http://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=mlang_facpubs
- http://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783845264066-80/western-imaginaries-between-fascination-colonial-construction-and-appropriation-the-lore-of-a-mysterious-india-of-the-goddess-kali-and-of-her-evil-devotees
- The Tigers of Mompracem taught at bates.edu https://www.academia.edu/15019831/Pirates_in_Literature_and_Film
- You haven't found the two peer reviewed articles that I listed in works that cite ROH Press or any of the other works cited. You haven't looked at any of the titles by Eccleshare, Boxall, Eco or Daniels, haven't done an image search with ROH Press Salgari, haven't looked at OPAC listings, haven't searched library archives Canada, haven't searched any of the online bookstores to see our full online catalogues, haven't Googled any ISBN numbers to check for international distribution, Google books is incomplete.
- 7 ROH Press titles have their own Wikipedia page. How can the output of an indie publisher be considered notable, but the indie publisher itself is not?
- What about the presence of the books in libraries?
- Written in 1885, Mathias Sandorf is a tale of survival and revenge. The novel tells the story of Dr. Antekirtt, a dry-docked Captain Nemo and master of an island fortress full of advanced weaponry.
- -- Library Journal, Classic Returns, Michael Rogers, December 15, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 04:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Canada: http://amicus.collectionscanada.ca/aaweb-bin/aamain/rqst_sb?sessionKey=1476068047039_142_78_200_14
- Australia: http://trove.nla.gov.au/book/result?q=sandokan
- Malaysia: http://pustaka.summon.serialssolutions.com/search/results?q=salgari&spellcheck=true#!/search?ho=t&l=en&q=%22roh%20Press%22
- OPAC: http://www.librarynet.com.my/pls/angkasa/opac3_list.hit_list?pc_itemloc=&pc_author=salgari&pc_title=sandokan&pc_subject=&pc_sort=&pn_hitlimit=10&pc_desc=Y&pc_location=&pc_more=&pc_product=OPAC&pn_page=1&pc_location=&pc_searchtype=basic
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 10:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sources listed by Sidzee in comments above only mention ROH Press as publishing the book (ie - a trivial mention) if at all (several do not mention ROH Press); none of those sources are about the company. Sidzee, you are being asked to provide articles from reliable sources that discuss the company, not the company's products. Such articles should describe, for example, the company's history, executive, operations, and other corporate details. The fact that it publishes versions of public domain material is irrelevant for notability purposes. Mind matrix 16:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You measure a publishing company by what happens to the books it publishes. ROH Press does not republish public domain works. The English translations are not public domain. There are no other English translations of Mr Salgari's works. These are the first ones ever. The Spanish editions are also not public domain, they are new annotated translations therefore copyrightable derivative works some issued in unabridged form for the first time in thirty years. The Pirates anthology has had the racist language edited out, making it different from all other titles on the market. The English translations are now in various libraries around the world, have been cited in research, taught in universities, cited in books that rank other books and one English translation has won an award. Most books published in 1898 don't don't get on bestseller lists, but the books are being read nationally and internationally. As I mentioned above, there are 7 Wikipedia pages that describe ROH Press titles, how can the output be notable but the company that creates the output not be notable? They're publishing novels that no one else publishes or has ever published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 23:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ROH Press title of Mathias Sandorf (2007) was the first re-issue of of the title in 80 years. It was the first complete and unabridged version to be published in English. Michael Dirda reviewed it in Classics for Pleasure and mentioned it again in his article in the Washington Post in 2007. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/04/DI2007100401051.html . Dirda was referencing the ROH Press publication; there were no electronic public domain editions of this title available online at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 3:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Delete. While uniqueness can speak to notability if that claim is properly cited to reliable sources which are independent of the company's own self-promotion, a company does not get exempted from our sourcing requirements just because it claims to be unique — every single thing and every single person that exists at all can always claim to be unique in some way, so an unsourced article cannot be kept just because somebody asserts uniqueness. And notability is not inherited, so the company doesn't get an automatic inclusion freebie just because of the particular titles or authors it happens to publish either. The company gets a Wikipedia article if, and only if, it can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough substantive coverage in media to pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG. But nothing shown here satisfies that requirement — having its name mentioned in reviews of its books does not constitute coverage about the company, and nothing that does constitute coverage about the company is being shown at all.
And furthermore, Sidzee, the fact that you use the first person we to talk about the company, meaning that you're either an employee or an owner of it, means that you have a conflict of interest — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free advertising platform, and our rules explicitly state that if you're directly affiliated with the topic then you can't start an article about it yourself. We exist as a venue for neutral third party content, not as a platform for companies to republish their own marketing materials. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." And that criteria has been met in the inclusion/reviews of ROH Press titles in the works of Dirda, Eccleshare, Boxall, Eco and Daniels published by different publishers. You can't Google their content because they are physical books; Amazon doesn't offer a look inside feature because once you get a look at the table of contents there is no reason to buy the book. A translation is either as good as, better, or worse than the original. The La Stampa article mentions that the ROH Press title The Pirates of Malaysia was used as a source for the Malay translation, that was national news in Italy. It's not important how many board members ROH has, it's office size, etc.. Most book reviews don't talk about the publisher they talk about the book. That's what's important to readers. Most articles about publishers are little more than PR for the publisher. There is no other publisher that publishes the same English titles as ROH Press. They were the first company to make Mr Salgari's titles available in English. You want articles about staff size, and board members, and buildings. Not going to happen. Delete the article today please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidzee (talk • contribs) 22:32, 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. Mkdw ^talk 04:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Mino[edit]

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

Did not meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Her name was already included in the Miss Global wiki article. Richie Campbell (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate coverage to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam / non notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 14:23, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Europe Coalition on Whistleblower Protection[edit]

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

Delete. Article about an organization with no strong claim of notability per WP:ORG, and no strong reliable source coverage to get it over WP:GNG -- this is based almost entirely on primary sources, with the exception of a single piece of media coverage which isn't about the organization, but merely features a member of it giving soundbite about the topic that is the subject of the article. This is not the type of sourcing that gets something like this into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 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 00:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When reviewing the references, I was originally leaning toward keep, but I have discovered that there is not enough coverage to merit inclusion per WP:ORG or GNG. It does have good coverage by one or two other NGOs. A Google News search reveals one real news story containing only passing mention in the form of a quote by the organization and one of its members. It is unfortunate because I think this organization will really help make a difference in former eastern bloc nations, but for now this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I suggest revisiting this topic in a year or two because by then it may have garnered enough coverage in reliable sources to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 16 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Poetry[edit]

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

"God Morgen Lyrikk" is a collection of translated poetry into Norwegian from Tamil. Article in current state makes little sense. This ref from The Hindu would be useful to understand it. But I don't think this passes WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. And redirect with a wrong name to the original author's page would not make sense either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:54, 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Metzler[edit]

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

Upon first glance of a search of Metzler, it doesn't yield much outside of a few items. Sure he produced "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" for which he won an Emmy and PGA Award for, currently produces "Catfish: The TV Show," and won an Environmental Media Award for "The Lazy Environmentalist." But outside of that, he doesn't seem notable. Who ever created the article didn't bother adding any information or sources. Looking at the edit history, in nearly four years of the article page being around no progress has been made to get the article to a suitable point in which it shows notability of said person. Looking at Golfer1000x's talk page, they have recieved a couple of AfD notices, but nothing can be found in regards to that. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 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 06:20, 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 01:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom the NYT source is good, but I'm not sure we can swing a BLP on a single source. I'm actually surprised I couldn't turn up more in a basic BEFORE, and that quite a lot of the GNews hits I get are for other people of the same name - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 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. Mkdw ^talk 04:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Peterson Bowles[edit]

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

Bowles has no claim to notability. Winning a state pageant is not enough on its own. The book she coauthored with her sister is not enough to make her notable. Her work as a lawyer is totally unnotable. Her running for Minneosta State House and loosing in the Republican primary is the thing non-notability is made of. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book actually received a significant amount of coverage. I'll take another look and see what I can do with the article. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 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 01:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no additional sources have been produced to assert notability and I'm not convinced that the book (if sources are provided) would confer notability to the subject. That would be a better argument for creating an article on the book. The article as is stands is strictly a vanity page and provides no value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: state beauty pageant winner and failed political candidate does not meet threshold for notability. Quis separabit? 14:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A state level beauty pageant might count toward notability if there were enough reliable source coverage about her in that context to satisfy WP:GNG, but it does not confer an automatic inclusion freebie just because she exists — and being an unsuccessful candidate for political office does not speak to notability at all. And when it comes to the referencing, the beauty pageant and book are sourced to primary sources rather than reliable ones, her birthdate and non-notable family members were sourced to a user-generated genealogy site that policy explicitly deprecates as inherently invalid sourcing for anything in a Wikipedia article and therefore had to be stripped, and the little bit of actual RS coverage present is purely routine local coverage of the election (one of which just namechecks her existence a single time). This is simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a state-level beauty pageant winner or an unelected candidate for political office notable for those things. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sin rastro de ti[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:MOVIE & WP:TVSHOW. No sources. At best this is a case of WP:NOTYET Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:03, 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 06:21, 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 01:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per major improvements by user Philip J Fry using the many available Spanish language sources somehow missed by the nominator in his WP:BEFORE.[49][50] Well done Fry. Sorry Zackmann the points here being that 1) notability is determined through sources being available not through their being used, 2) per WP:NONENG sourcing does not have to be in English, 3) when sources are available we do not send an improvable topic to deletion, and 4) that WP:BEFORE is a very useful tool. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:17, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per article improvements. More sources are likely to be available in the future as this is a new series. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of years in Lithuania[edit]

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

This article does not appear to serve a purpose. The "mothership" article List of years by country was recently deleted at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years by country. The article almost exclusively contains red links and would not be a useful navigation tool. Category:Years in Lithuania appears to be much more useful. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 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 01:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With all the red links this serves no purpose whatsoever. ReusGang (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The category does this much better. The article merely shows how many potential redlinks exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:54, 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 should be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fankhauser[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Young actor's article with two very ephemeral references. BLP Prod was removed by author on addition of the first ref - no problem there, but quality of refs fails standards set by WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk · contribs) 23:42, 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 01:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt for now given this is literally a yearago and we're not anywhere different than the 1st AfD, all of this is trivial and contributed no substance for actual independent notability apart from his 2 trivial works. SwisterTwister talk 01:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page on an unremarkable actor. Nothing of substance here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:32, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Forscutt[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as the mayor of a town nowhere near large enough (pop. 9K) to hand its mayors an automatic notability freebie per WP:NPOL. The referencing here is almost entirely to primary sources, such as Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself and a brief family reminiscence by a personal relative of his, and the only thing that actually counts as reliable source coverage in media is covering him in the context of owning a herd of cattle, not in the context of being mayor of anything. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a smalltown mayor over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a new page created yesterday at Katherine's first editathon. We have since expanded the page and increased the reference list. There are endless news articles about Forscutt, we will continue to build the page. Forscutt is extremely notable not just in the town of Katherine, but across the Northern Territory. Just give us some time to continue to build the page.--Tenniscourtisland (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be notable sourcing on Trove includes 27 journals, 91 archived websites(583 pages), more than a mere mayor as president of the Northern Territory Local Government Association, expriemental cattle breeder, state wide business operator Katherine is one of the three major regional centres of the Northern Territory the other two being Alice Springs, and Tennant Creek. As for online sources the Northern Territory had until recently lower internet access and resources than most african countries. Gnan garra 03:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-term mayor of the third-largest town in the Northern Territory, which assumes much more significance due to its isolation and importance as a regional centre. Significant political figure for a couple of decades, with the inevitable sources out the ear that go with that. The bloke has 165 Factiva hits even though newspapers from most of his mayoral reign (and all of his involvement in territory-level politics) are too far back to have been digitised, and there's a few book references to go with that. Wikipedia ought to take a dim view of nomination attempts as sloppy as the above: mischaracterising sources that badly is eyebrow-raising to say the least. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my responsibility to psychically divine whether better sources might exist in databases I have no way to access — I can only evaluate sources I can see, and I in no way "misrepresented" the sources that were present in the article at the time. If enough improved sourcing can be added to get him a credible WP:GNG claim, then that's great — but the fact that coverage of him might exist in databases I don't have access to, when it doesn't exist in any database I do have access to, in no way means I'm doing anything wrong or misrepresenting anything. Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "This is a new page created yesterday at Katherine's first editathon.", no mention of this on the talkpage which may have elicited some leeway, also have had a quick look on the oz and nt wikiproject front and talkpages, have been unable to find any mention of this editathon, also the addition of an under construction tag on the article would have been helpful (i note that the article was over 24hours old before it was nominated).

Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coolabahapple. Thanks for this we'll use the Under construction tag next time - never seen that before. The editathon is listed here: https://wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Wikimedia_Australia --Tenniscourtisland (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gnangarra. Given the low population of the Northern Territory, its status as a top-level sub-national jurisdiction, and the sources that refer to this person, I would support an exception to NPOLITICIAN on the basis that he does seem to be notable at the territorial level. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another NN very small-town mayor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Gnangarra and The Drover's Wife. There is still no mention at the article's talk page that it was created in an edit-a-thon, by the way. --do ncr am 00:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkdw ^talk 04:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Slatington, Pennsylvania schools[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article was tagged for notability in August 2007, which was replaced with a prose tag a year and 2 months later and then the notability tag was readded by an IPv6 user on 26 July 2016. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also the copyright issues. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there were no copyright problems, the content would still not be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above there are multiple issues - insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources, and nothing there to really talk about once copyrighted material is removed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Prune and merge -- If there are RS, it might be possible to convert the text that was there to a narrative article on the Slatington High School, possibly as a section in an article on it. Currently the article has effectively been blanked by having a COPY-VIO tag was splattered across it. I am assuming that the material is in fact capable of verification: it all looks credible, and sources in local newspapers for much of it could probably be found. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . I know we're very open about Wikipedia being an almanac but I really can't see any value in this article at all. It's not a school, so it doesn't fall under OUTCOMES. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not an almanac. There might be something that could be merged to Northern Lehigh High School, but not a great deal. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:01, 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 redirect to List of Kamen Rider Wizard characters. Don't usually close on one !vote however it's been open for 4 weeks and relisting it for a 5th week would achieve nothing so am closing as Redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Beast[edit]

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

This character article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Wizard characters. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "Redirect" but a user disagrees on my talk page, so opening for another week. SST flyer 09:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 09:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 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 redirect to List of Kamen Rider Wizard characters. Don't usually close on one !vote however it's been open for 4 weeks and relisting it for a 5th week would achieve nothing so am closing as Redirect. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Wizard (character)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Wizard characters. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "Redirect" but a user disagrees on my talk page, so opening for another week. SST flyer 09:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SST flyer 09:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Wizard characters; not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TNT applies here. A redirect with this title isn't going to be useful. --Michig (talk) 07:49, 16 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 Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks. "I remember a source somewhere" doesn't cut it. Sandstein 18:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Maggard[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league ballplayer. Tried to expand it myself but didn't find anything outside of routine coverage (not even a day-after obit, which surprised me). Wizardman 14:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to just presume WP:OFFLINE sources for this player exist somewhere.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks where he is mentioned. Spanneraol (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting per Spanneraol makes sense if we can't find enough to support a full article. I suspect that adequate coverage exists to support notability for a full article, but it is difficult to find. I think this article from the old Google newspaper site goes a long way, and there is some minor coverage as well, such as this, this, and if someone has access to a complete news archive I suspect there would be more. 21:44, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I do have newspapers.com access, and while there are a decent number of game log/routine mentions, I didn't find anything like the Sarasota piece. I'll take a second look to see if perhaps I missed any though. Wizardman 22:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can't remember what it was but I do remember a whole newspaper article about him.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehul Bhojak[edit]

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

The author of this article has repeatedly removed PROD and CSD tags, so taking it to AfD (see the trail at User_talk:Jigneshsatani). The article was previously deleted at 19:47 on 14 September 2016 by RHaworth (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject), but was immediately re-created by the same user without any improvement. This situation has not changed; I still can't find any indication of noteworthiness. Gronk Oz (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not qualify under A7, because it makes an assertion of notability. That said, the assertion does not check out, there are no sources to be found... google news actually gives ZERO results, which is ridiculous for someone claiming to be "the most popular actor" of any location. Delete the article, but technically does not qualify for speedy. PROD would have been fine, except the article author objects. So... AfD is the only recourse now. Fieari (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had marked this for CSD under A7 and it was removed. Subject not notable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Gbawden (talk) 09:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do not rely on Google hits for India related topics; instead use custom Google search engines listed at WP:INDAFD. Subject probably qualifies for inclusion as he seems to satisfy WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG criteria. Sources: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]. Plus, I believe there must be some quality sources in Gujarati language published from the region he belongs to. Anup [Talk] 03:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Newest sources need to be addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Subject at the very least, meets WP:NACTOR for he has acted in multiple notable tv soap operas and films. Article has been re-written and few refs added in there. Again, Google doesn't establish notability on Wikipedia. Anup [Talk] 06:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR doesn't provide notability for acting in multiple notable TV shows but for playing "significant roles in multiple... shows". This isn't clear from the article yet. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Post the previous editor's comments, I searched (and searched, and searched)... phew... no sources worth the effort. Fails GNG, fails, BASIC, fails NACTOR. Lourdes 12:57, 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. Seems like the only sources explicitly provided (and not just a Google search) aren't in-depth enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikos Resorts[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is nothing more than a business listing on a company that isn't even two years old. MSJapan (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Might be WP:TOOSOON but is covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable sources, [57] and [58] are in and of themselves sufficient, and google news has a long list of many more. Fieari (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources listed by Fierari establish WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both of the sources listed above are showcased galleries and advertisements for this resort company, all resorts all such advertisements and they are quite frequently enticed and paid for; the second link is then also advertising and it's literally an interview with the businessman himself. It's clear to say that such a new company like this, they would be ever so avid about advertising and these are the examples above: flashy and advertising information about its services. The second link above is clearly a travel guide itself, so along with all of these certainly not being guaranteed to not be influenced by this company itself, there's certainly no guarantees it's not PR-based, which in this case, is clearly so. Honestly, the article itself is actually speedy material in that it only contains no minimal and basic information along with barebone thin claims. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:DIRECTORY. The sources offered above are insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH / GNG, with one being an interview with the owner. The rest are better, but not by much. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one line to read. Definitely not even worthy of discussions. Light2021 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and above. Too short to be a stub w/ unreliable sources (advertisements).Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 04:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are not good enough to satisfy WP:NCORP

Meet the man behind Ikos Resorts Interview of the chief executive of Ikos Resorts which cannot be used for notability per WP:CORPIND
Hotel review This is a routine review and honestly this looks suspiciously like an advertorial

I don't see any high quality indepth sources which are required for satisfying WP:NCORP, so delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to agree that the sources provided at not useful in determining notability. I see no other indication that this resort meets WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. The WP:BURDEN is on the keep camp to address these concerns which have not yet since been done. Mkdw ^talk 04:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Gorenstein, Jason. "Awareness in the Workplace through Yoga". keckmedicine.org/awareness-in-the-workplace-through-yoga/. Keck Hospital of USC. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

[2] Gorenstein, Jason. "About Me". jasongorenstein.com. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

[3] Weber, Gary (2013). Happiness Beyond Thought. New York: iUniverse. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-595-41856-5. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

[4] Weber, Gary (September–October 2016). "How Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi changed my life" (PDF). Ramana Gyan Direct Path. XIX (1): 15–18. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

[5] Weber, Gary (July–August 2010). "Living Beyond Thought". Ramana Gyan Direct Path. XI (6): 33–37. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

[6] Weber, Gary (2008). "On Using Sri Ramana's Teachings For Yoga Practices" (PDF). The Mountain Path (April–June): 73–78. Retrieved 5 October 2016.

[7] Weber, Gary (2010). "Everything Is Predetermined-Is That Scientifically Possible?" (PDF). The Mountain Path (Jan–March): 3–8. Retrieved 9 October 2016.

[8] Weber, Gary (2011). "Where Does This 'I' Arise" (PDF). The Mountain Path (October–December): 81–86. Retrieved 9 October 2016.

[9] Weber, Gary (2013). "Non Dual Meditation and Self-Enquiry" (PDF). The Mountain Path (January–March): 81–86. Retrieved 9 October 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]