Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 September	20 September >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Targum (species)[edit]

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

This fictional alien species does not appear to be notable, as it is from a seemingly not notable short story published in a seemingly not notable magazine. I'm not finding any readily available sources. — TAnthony^Talk 23:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: no evidence found of significant coverage by reliable sources. Seems to be spillover fan content from Aliens Wikia. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could only find wiki-type sources for verification. Does not meet Wp:Note guidelines. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if the short story itself were to be found notable, the alien species within it would not be. Not unless it started showing up commonly elsewhere too. And it hasn't. And I don't think the short story is notable anyway. Delete. Fieari (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability independent of a magazine feature, for which the magazine feature is itself non-notable. —Mythdon 10:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I'm usually a fan of merging NN content, per what others have observed above, there is no valid and appropriate place on Wikipedia to reuse or capture any of this content. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet GNG. No reliable sources out there, just wikis. Omni Flames (talk) 02:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 09:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis Keino[edit]

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

Nothing at all for actual independent notability, I have found nothing at all from my searches; this is advertorial with it containing nothing actually substantial. Any policies would be the applicable notability, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, nothing to indicate this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 07:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I went through every single page of google results, and found nothing. No chance of passing GNG per nom and Melcous. Yvarta (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe the article disguises her notability by not mentioning her long marriage, now over. There are reliable sources about her and Kip Keino starting their work in the 1960s/1970s, confirming that Phyllis K has been caring for abandoned children for decades. As well as these articles [1] [2] [3] [4] [5][6] there are a few more in UK subscription databases. Also see NYT 1989: "In Kenya, the Keinos are known for their humanitarian work." Searching Google Books for Phyllis Keino, with and without quotes, confirms she is known for being a partner in the children's home/school/farm setup. In 1998, for example: "Volunteers from far-flung countries have come to the Keino farm to offer their time and labor, and individuals who admire the Keinos often send small cash donations of $10 or $20. Thus far, Kip and Phyllis Keino have harbored and nurtured hundreds of children within the walls of their farmhouse and dormitory. Today, seventy-three children and young adults, ages two to twenty-two, live on the farm." In 2003 a Kenyan newspaper reported on a rift in their marriage, and implications for their children's establishments.[7] [8] It looks as if PK kept on a big share of the charitable work. One of the stories said there could be a risk of losing support from Bread and Water for Africa and Christian Relief Services, but these US/international charities have clearly stuck with PK. With all this in mind, I'd think some of the recent sources cited in the article confirm notability. They suggest her awards and spokeswoman roles are based on a reputation built up over years. Lelijg (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Not much in terms of coverage, although there is something here but not enough to meet the GNG imo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Update: changing to Weak keep based on sourcing from Lelijg (above) and based on his comments below. Clearly Phyllis was a major part of what happened, and it's not really right that she should be overshadowed simply because her husband is much more famous. If all the numerous mentions (from reliable sources) are taken into consideration, then perhaps it pushes her into the Keep column, albeit a weak keep. So I've changed my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources I found (see above) come up with a search on her name minus quotes. That's what she gets for being half of "the Keinos" or Kip Keino's wife Phyllis! There's still plenty written about her as an individual, to meet GNG. Lelijg (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked again. Most of your sources are simply mentions. There is an in-depth one here. Still, mostly the sources are about the Olympian -- and his wife -- that kind of thing, suggesting the real focus is not on her, but on him. If you find another source -- in-depth, focusing on her -- I can be persuaded to change my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to me to be more than just "mentions" and overall the coverage adds up to personal notability, especially considering these are US and UK sources and we have no access to Kenyan newspapers from the 1970s to 1990s. Sure, the journalists start with the big Olympic star, but overall PK's role is described in enough detail to show she was always key to the project, hence the ongoing support from charities and also the award (p6) from an organisation that appears to be in no way affiliated with her. Lelijg (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Probably merits a bit more discussion on the recently provided sources Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was leaning delete and I'm no friend to marginal mentions, which many are. But there is enough coverage of her to pass notability. ~~I think the better decision is not to have a page of her own and combine content with her husband, as most coverage does, but~~ does this pass GNG? Yes. Methods: Ran a Lexis search on Phyllis Keino (sans quotes) and got 32 hits. 25 of those, I would say, are marginal mentions with little content other than her marriage and former profession. A couple of false hits, but 5-6 sources with sufficient content. I'll briefly quote from the Vancouver Sun 2005 article, per Tomwsulcer request, "They are mothers to many, the backbone of a country with so many children in need. Phyllis Keino runs the Lewa Children's Home in western Kenya; Grace Seneiya runs the Samburu Handicap Education and Rehabilitation Program (SHERP) orphanage for children with disabilities in northern Kenya. Vancouverite Susan Standfield has enlisted both to become partners in her company, the Children's Photographic Gallery of Kenya. Here is the story of the two orphanages and the two women. In the 1970s, the Keino family started caring for abandoned children. In 1987, with the help of a Benedictine father, Paul Durr, Phyllis managed to buy a farm for the orphanage. A nurse by training, she is a strong, energetic woman." And it continues. There's a few others, not many, but they are there. AbstractIllusions (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Kip Keino. She is barely mentioned there, and the article about her does not mention him, so there would have to be significant research to merge the two articles. If nobody volunteers to do that, I would say Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any policy about merging BLPs for a separated couple? As you say, it would be difficult work to do it well. Lelijg (talk) 07:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Draft:Bread and Water for Africa TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
)Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respond to Lelijg: I couldn't find a policy about it. But it should cause a pause in any decision to merge, right? The care to be taken with living persons would certainly extend to the page on which their information is organized. I now think Merge would be a very bad idea and reiterate that this is a person with multiple individual profiles, so I don't see why it wouldn't be kept. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AbstractIllusions for improving the article and adding refs. Definitely more balanced, and truer to sources. Worth keeping. Lelijg (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Considering my nomination will be closing here soon I presume, but has anyone honestly actually gone through this article and subsequently found nothing is either substantial or significant for establishing her own career article? The article (in the first sentence) makes claims of connections to Kip himself, but I honestly am not believing we should redirect or merge there, since there's still nothing essential to merge; anything that is important to state there, can be stated with only a few sentences at best. The awards here themselves contain nothing actually convincing, her career section essentially goes through information about her jobs and what happened, and then also about her family life. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no basis for merging mentions into an articles. One has to be notable for something, and any number of very mibnior activities do not make one notable, there has to be something important, becqqause only they are what is reflected in substantial sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister & DGG. Response What are you all talking about? You seem to be judging the quality of her works. That's not the point. The question is simple: from WP:GNG is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Her charity work has been covered in multiple newspapers, both alone and in coverage where she receives significant coverage in articles primarily about Kip. I've added multiple sources to the article including two lengthy profiles of her work in the Vancouver Sun and the East African Standard. Let's stick to GNG significant coverage standard, rather than a "minor activities" standard that you both seem to be embracing. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the currently listed sources, I see nothing to suggest there's actual substance for her; I notice several non-URL sources, an interview, other mentions and these including for events or part of the philanthropy. SwisterTwister talk 17:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, access to databases of newspapers is handy for figuring out notability, I admit it. Either AGF or be upset, but just because you can't see them that doesn't change that her work has been covered in multiple newspapers. So...yeah. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "The Immortals: The Keinos have always set the pace". The Standard. 2016-08-18. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Phyllis Keino: The spokesperson for Bread and Water for Africa is a registered nurse. She founded Lewa Children’s Home inside the 500 acres acquired from the Craig family in 1987. She also runs Kipkeino School, a primary boarding founded by hubby, ‘kip’ in 1999 besides the family’s Baraka Farm. The recipient of the 2006 Visionary Award from Christian Relief Services and the 2010 World of Difference 100 Award from the International Alliance for Women, is a mother of seven including famous son, Martin Keino.
2. Abrahamson, Alan. (2001-02-25). "Grand Kenyans" (pages 1, 2, and 3). Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  In a world too often dominated by tales of athletes who think me-first, Keino, 61, and his wife, Phyllis, make abundantly clear what the grace of selflessness and a heartfelt devotion to others can accomplish in life.
  ...
  Bob Keino, 24, the fifth of seven children born to Kip and Phyllis, says, "He always taught us--you can be the best in the world at your sport but you always have to be humble."
  ...
  When he came home to Kenya from the 1972 Olympics, Keino had four Olympic medals. By the end of that year, he and Phyllis would have eight children in their house.
  Three had been born to them. Phyllis said she found the others queuing for food in front of a police station. A nurse, she told her husband that the children needed them. He agreed. "I feel the humanity of being a human being," he says now.
  Thus was launched what is now the Kip Keino Children's Home. Since 1984, the home has been officially registered with the Kenyan government.
  ...
  Baraka was bought in 1989 for the Children's Home through a Swiss priest stationed in Eldoret. The idea was Phyllis'. She wanted more land in order to grow more food for the children and to generate income for the Home.
  ...
  At Kazi Mingi, meantime, Phyllis' day begins at 5:30 a.m. It ends late at night.
3. Finney, Peter (1993-06-05). "Martin is a Kip off the Old Keino Block". The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Naturally, 53-year-old Kip was elated over the triple of his 20-year-old son. Martin Keino, the third-oldest of eight children, has no problem living in the shadow of a small man who continues to cast a long shadow. Kip and Phyllis Keino operate an orphanage in their hometown of Eldoret, Kenya. They've been taking in orphans for the 30 years of their married life, providing a home for more than 100 children representing a half-dozen tribes. They've taken in the malnourished, malformed and maltreated. They've given each child a name in English and Nandi, which is Kip's native tongue.
4. "Keino's wife has different view of snow". USA Today. 1988-01-05. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Kip Keino, two-time Olympic gold medalist, believes education is the key to life.
  His wife, Phyllis Keino, got an education in snow when 4 inches were on the ground by Monday.
  "I didn't know snow fell from the sky," said Phyllis Keino, who saw her first snow Sunday. "I just thought it was on the ground."
  The Keinos, who live in Kenya, were in the capital for a presentation for Sports Illustrated's Male and Female Athletes of the Year. Keino was one of eight recognized for contributions to society. He and the others - Dale Murphy, Reggie Williams, Chip Rives, Patty Sheehan, Judi Brown King, Rory Sparrow and Bob Bourne - were at the White House Monday.
  The Keinos have provided a home for 100 orphans since they married in 1964.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Phyllis Keino to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep -- I believe that enough sources have been presented for individual notability, outside of marriage. The article also have been sufficiently improved by AbstractIllusions to avoid WP:PROMO. I thus believe that the article can stay. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to give people time to evaluate the sources found by Cunard -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no policy violation, and I'm willing to WP:AGF with Cunard's new sources as I have found the editor to be reliable in the past. With that, I see a pass on WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Article could use clean up and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete the sources here are all passing mentions. Some of the notes above are baffling to me; if you can actually quote the entire discussion in a source here at AfD, that is exactly what a "passing mention" is. There needs to be significant discussion in multiple independent sources to pass GNG. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a pretty clear delete. Every single source...yes, every single source contains a passing mention at best. That doesn't ever add up to "significant coverage". Considering a one or two line mention as a significant coverage is a mockery of WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY, WP:BARE. A marginal case, this can be improved further by adding the sources found. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Courcelles (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Ahmed maher saddam) in violation of ban or block) (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qassim Abdulkarem[edit]

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

Prod removed. Original author blocked for sockpuppetry which may be ongoing. Article is about a minimally notable blogger. Seems to be promotional in intent but not so flagrantly as to be speedily deletable. Previously deleted under name Qassim Abdulkareem Qassim with similar content. DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable 18-year-old media personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CSD G5 plain and simple. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Laborio[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Wizardman 22:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league player. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not finding evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk)13:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our criteria for the notability of sportsmen set a very low bar indeed, but this person apparently does not clear it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michaelbradford20 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)* "Totally disagree with pending AFD action. High level of public Notability achieved and accomplished. All registered for public reference thru various media and web site sources. Michaelbradford20 (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbradford20 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC) — Michaelbradford20 (talk • [reply]

contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Not notable minor league player....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's hard to fail NSPORTS, but this one appears to. Montanabw^(talk) 22:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
""Maintain Article Posting, DO NOT delete"" Extreme high levels of achievement ascertained in State of Rhode Island. Numerous records of performance achieved and unique status levels accomplished.

This editor is an elder resident of Cranston, Rhode Island. Although I do not know the subject personally nor, have I ever met the subject. I assure you that this subject is considered a legend within the sports community of Cranston and also in Rhode Island. His athletic accomplishments nearly 50 years later, are still spoken of and used for comparisons for other promising athletes to aspire. Subject has been the recipient of much Notability. In accordance with the guidelines established by Wikipedia under the reference titled - Wikipedia : Notability ( sports ). Please consider the following material posted by Wikipedia : GENERAL NOTABILITY GUIDELINES : * " Reliable "- Means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editor's evaluating Notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability - indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus before proposing or nominating an article for deletion or offering an opinion based on Notability in a deletion discussion, editor's are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. In conclusion, as previously stated, the aforementioned information of Notability was referenced from the Wikipedia manual. I firmly believe that the Providence Journal, Cranston Herald, www. internet media sources, Wikipedia, Snipview, City of Cranston, Rhode Island, City of Providence Rhode Island, should all be considered as reliable, suitable, independent sources of Notability.Lilrhodybb (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)— Lilrhodybb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do NOT Remove -Do NOT Delete - Keep Posting *. Awayoflifebball80 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Subject has a high level of credibility, accomplishments and Notability. In reviewing entire Subject's Wikipedia article a highly sufficient level of Notability is recognized. The one Notable achievement by this Subject that just totally brings my admiration to another level is the Rhode Island Baseball record established for Strike out's by a pitcher in a game. Subject pitched a Perfect Game in which, 20 out of the 21 outs in the game where recorded via STRIKEOUT'S. That is an amazing 95%. As an avid admire of Baseball, I have never come across such an achievement. In all forms of organized Baseball history,weather it be from Little League to Major League, I feel very confident in claiming that this level of accomplishment has very seldom occurred. An example of Notability without question. Do NOT Delete.Awayoflifebball80 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, so obviously we have some sock/meat puppetry here, but there's also something strange about the history of this article. ~~It was created by an SPA about an Edward Laborio that looks an awful lot like a hoax. A few bits of similar text about a magnificent philanthropist and seemingly nothing verifiable.~~ Then in 2013 a now-blocked sock puppet of a paid editor ~~just hijacked the page and turned it into~~ an article on this Edward Laborio. Weird. That's not to say this Laborio is a hoax -- there look to be enough sources to verify some of the information, but not enough to show notability, but the number of puppets coming out to try to keep it, suggests that perhaps this paid editor is still active. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eragon.raju/Archive. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history, there are three with the edit summary "Created page...." The deletion log shows that the first two versions were about the philanthropist and deleted under A7. The third version was the current subject and was deleted by prod but then restored by JohnCD when it was contested. What appears to have happened is that he accidentally restored all three deleted versions. As the previous versions about the philanthropist were speedy deleted and no one has contested that, that part of the edit history can be ignored. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. Thanks. Striking part of my comment above so as not to distract from the unresolved issues. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to be about a fairly unaccomplished baseball player who flamed out at the lower levels of the minor leagues and never sniffed the majors. Some minor accomplishments in his hometown do not satisfy wikipedia's guidelines.. and despite the editor above (the creator of the article) claiming that the subject has lots of notability he has not been able to place any of these so called sources into the article to establish notability.The sources actually in the article are not formatted properly and thus dont lead to the urls that might establish anything. Spanneraol (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 references given do not appear to be sufficient to establish notability, based on the discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

L. B. Henry[edit]

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

Not notable local politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references look ok to me. The article was a "Did You Know" in 2008. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has 12 references. 8 of which (ref# 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12) are obituaries or find-a-grave both fail WP:RS when it comes to establishing notability. In fact 6 of those 8 aren't about Henry but other people. Of the other 4, 2 are strictly election results. Another is on a mobile home park named after him. That leaves 1 reference for his life accomplishments, or 3 if you count the election results refs....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Added comment Reference number two looks like a private email. Billy Hathorn articles have used statements from people that weren't published somewhere as references....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best election result are primary sources. This leaves 1 reference, and we MUST have at least two. County Comissioners are not defualt notable. Thus we need substantial sources, and we totally lack such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Super Dimension Fortress Macross: Flash Back 2012. Sandstein 08:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SDF-2 Megaroad-01[edit]

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

No established notability. Fictional vehicle from the Macross Franchise. I'm not sure the best way of handling this. Essentially it appears in The Super Dimension Fortress Macross: Flash Back 2012 so a merge there was a possibility, but it's also the sister ship to SDF-1 Macross which as an article already requires a massive reworking. Some of the information may be useful on either of those articles but on it's own it's a lot of information for something that only appears in a 30minute music video. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Flash Black 2012. There isn't sourced justification to create an article when it is so strongly tied to one particular OVA and not the entire franchise of multiple TV series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'll note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Robotech vehicles has made a mess of things, because there are TWO fictional SDF-2's, one for Robotech and one for Macross, and the former appears to have been merged to a list, then deleted, and now an avoidable redlink... while this one, relevant to the latter universe, has an inappropriately specific name, given it's the only SDF-2 Wikipedia currently recognizes. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom (Kamen Rider)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks significant notability. Meatsgains (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks notability. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If I am permitted to give such a suggestion, the sources given should probably be used in the article, right now it's a stub. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Sanada[edit]

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

Non-remarkable person. No medals in the paralympics, fails WikiProject Tennis guidelines, fails WP:NSPORT guidelines. Per sources given not notable Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why is winning the Japan open not notable? thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By consensus it does not automatically make one notable. Winning one of the Grand Slam tournaments makes you notable. Or medaling in the paralympics. It's also possible to bypass Olympic or Tennis Project guidelines if the person passes General Notability Guidelines (GNG). It would need to be shown that the press has written articles specifically about this player. Not mentions, not scores, not sentences... but actual articles on Takashi Sanada. If you can find a couple newspapers that have write-ups about him it can be sourced in the article and the new info can be added. It's not there now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, its surprising he hasn't had indepth coverage. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find some, by all means bring it here to our attention. You can also put a copy of this in your sandbox and if he does start getting a bunch of press, you can easily recreate it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Keep in view of the sources supplied by Michitaro, I could not translate all of them but at least three or four that were google translated showed sig coverage directly about him- much better than my own search. If the article is kept will add the best of the refs to it. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found quite a number of significant articles on him in Japanese: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. A number are from major news sources such as Asahi, Shueisha, Yahoo, and Livedoor and definitely count as RS. Others seem to be feature articles or interviews from more specialty sites. All seem to be independent and none are blogs. I would say the weight of the evidence is that he passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read Japanese so I can't tell. If you feel they are good enough as sources you need to take the most important ones and incorporate them into the article. As the article stands he is not notable for anything tennis related so he'd need those sources to show he passes GNG. Otherwise he'll keep getting nominated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly at some time they should be added. They need not be added now, however, since per WP:NEXIST is it only necessary at this stage to show that the sources exist. Notability is not to be judged based on the current state of the article. Since this AfD has been del-sorted in Japan discussions, others there can verify if they think these Japanese sources are sufficient to keep the article. Michitaro (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I can't read Japanese, I'll take Michitaro's word in good faith that those sources are reliable, and they certainly sum up to significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources do not appear to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Bakshi[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references cited are a dead link, two papers co-authored by him (not about him) and a page on the web site of a company he works for. Searches for better sources have produced LinkedIn, announcements of his appointment to a post at Manipal Health, YouTube, this Wikipedia article, brief notes about his career on the web site of a conference in which he took part, and so on, but nothing that amounts to substantial independent coverage of him. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References do not support notability of this individual. The article was created and edited by multiple now-indefinitely-blocked socks of an editor who abused multiple accounts for promotional purposes. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itsmukeshhere. (My opinion is that this individual is an undisclosed paid editor.) Deli nk (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and above - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable health care administrator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 04:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in-depth and in-depth and mention and mention and quote and mention and in-depth. Meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

first "in depth" source is a lightly dressed press release and short, about his appointment; second "in depth" source is a lightly dressed press release about the hospital geting a new piece of equipment where he says some things about that (this is passing mention); third "in depth" source is again a lightly dressed press release about the hospital adding beds; again he says some things about that. None of these are in depth about him. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. A more likely explanation is you voted 'Delete' without doing one iota of checking; now with clear-cut sources, you're reluctant to admit to being a drive-by deletionist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith assumptions will get no where that you want to be, in WP. The sources in the article, the ones you cite, and the ones I found and didn't mention because they suck, do suck. As I noted, fails GNG. Jytdog (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are unlikely to convince in a deletion debate, particularly in direct response to someone checking your claimed references - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure seems like bad faith to trash reliable in-depth independent references like this one and this one and then invoke personal attack when another contributor points out that 'Delete' votes have been made without any effort to check sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a famous saying about holes and digging that I think has its own Wikipedia article - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's simpler: this article meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing bad faith about my evaluation that a source is a "lightly dressed press release" that you evaluate as being a "reliable in-depth independent reference". People evaluate things differently, in good faith, all the time. The only "bad faith" going on here, is your characterization of my statement. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hospital administrators are all too common. The sources recently found do not knock off my socks. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and, I meant to comment sooner, there is absolutely nothing here for any applicable notability or actually convincing substance, all it lists is his career and what it is about, that's a business listing, not an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 19:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yugoloth. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mydianchlarus[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Yugoloth. BOZ (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. No evidence of independent notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per BOZ. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Singh[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a property appraiser at the local level in one single county. This is not a role that gets a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself, but there's simply not much else here to hang a standalone article on. Content about the SeaWorld lawsuit would be perfectly appropriate in SeaWorld Orlando's article but is not enough to justify a standalone BLP of Rick Singh himself as a separate topic from that, nothing else here is particularly noteworthy at all, and the article is referenced only to the kind of local media coverage that a county appraiser would be expected to generate in their local media -- neither the volume nor the range of coverage shown are enough to make him more notable than the thousands of other people at his level of significance who don't have and won't be getting Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Almost all articles are examples of in-depth coverage. Passes WP:GNG, regardless of WP:NPOL. Usterday (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. For a political figure of purely "local to a single area" interest, such as a smalltown mayor or a non-metropolitan city councillor or a county clerk, WP:GNG is not passed just because local media coverage exists, if its scope and volume falls entirely within the WP:ROUTINE scope and volume of local media coverage that would be expected to exist for a person at that level. If they do not objectively pass NPOL by virtue of the office held, then the media coverage has to show them as significantly more notable than the norm for their field of activity, such as by nationalizing beyond the local media. Every single county appraiser in existence would always qualify for a Wikipedia article if local coverage were all it took to get them there — but it's not a level of office at which we can or do extend automatic notability to all of them, so a county appraiser has to be individually demonstrated as significantly more notable than most other county appraisers before he can be deemed notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, one would have to research the potential for GNG of hundreds of appraisers before you would be satisfied. GNG says nothing about showing someone is "more notable than similar people", it merely discusses in-depth articles. What is your evidence that there are "thousands like him?" other than an assumption that in-depth coverage is common for local politicians? I would argue it is not at all common, and that this level of press does show him as more notable, especially with the high profile of the cases he has dealt with (and in-depth articles about these focussing on his role). Usterday (talk) 19:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not an "assumption" on my part that local media coverage of local political figures exists; it's a simple, easily verifiable fact, because covering local news stories is what local media are for. It's not the case, for example, that some smalltown mayors or municipal councillors or county officials get covered by their local media while other smalltown mayors or municipal councillors or county officials get ignored by theirs; all mayors and municipal councillors and county officials always get coverage in their local media, and could always be claimed to pass GNG if local media coverage were all it took. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not "all" property appraisers are from one of the largest counties in the US, and deal with hundreds of millions of dollars in fines and citizens like SeaWorld. It is a false equivalency to compare this person to, say, someone from central Arkansas or Iowa. The page has evidence of GNG, and you are indeed merely stating "everyone else will obviously have the exact same coverage", without providing evidence of why you believe this other than assumption. Anyhow, we are allowed to disagree here. I just don't see any actual evidence of your position here, and believe that GNG should not be read as you are reading it. Usterday (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not my own personal "reading" of GNG. It's not enough to be familiar with the simple letter of Wikipedia policy — you need to also have a familiarity with the reality of how GNG is actually understood and applied at AFD in those cases when its passage or non-passage is debatable. And one of those realities is that for a political figure at the municipal level of governance, GNG is not deemed to have been passed on the basis of exclusively local coverage — people at the county level of office, sometimes even right up to the actual county executive, are often deleted if there's no non-local coverage to show, even with as much or more local sourcing as you've shown here. That's not my own tendentious interpretation of GNG; it's just the facts of how GNG works for topics at this level of interest.

And according to List of United States counties and county equivalents, Orange County FL only ranks 33rd in the US by population — which is not a high enough ranking to make "one of the largest counties in the United States" a compelling exemption from having to satisfy the same standards of more-than-just-local prominence that any other county-level official would have to meet. Even the largest county in the entire United States, Los Angeles County, California, still doesn't hand an automatic inclusion freebie to its county assessor on purely local media coverage alone, if nothing extralocal can be shown to demonstrate that anybody outside that county needs to care.

I said the stuff about the SeaWorld lawsuit could be addressed in SeaWorld's article, for example. But it's not strong evidence that we need to maintain a standalone BLP of him separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're not among the largest in US population; they are though in terms of revenue, and property values, which is what property appraisers deal with. That said, diminishing a State such as Florida as "merely part of the US" is strange to me. If the largest US county's assessor had this much press, in my mind, they'd qualify too. But the 1000s you referred to earlier, you are right, probably do not. More than that though, there is no wording in GNG that supports your reading of it. Point one is about "significant coverage", which this page has. Point two is that the sources must be reliable, which they are. Point three points to the use of non-primary sources, check again. Point four is that they are independent of the subject (sources that is), check again. Point five states that GNG is not a guarantee that something is notable. Are you arguing point five? That you don't believe GNG is good enough here? Otherwise, there is not "letter" in GNG that you can point to. Only the "Ignore all rules" aspect of the policy. There is, despite the protestations of many people on Wikipedia, nothing that dismisses local coverage from GNG. Even still, are you calling Forbes, the Orlando Sentinel, and NBC "extralocal" (a word not found in GNG to begin with). You keep stating "it's obvious" or "it's the way it is" to support your arguments, but that's not evidence for your point. Again, I agree to disagree, but am also happy to have an in-depth discussion of GNG if that's what you want. An AFD may not be the most appropriate place for that though. Usterday (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say this again: the letter of GNG is one thing, but there are many ways in which it's still up for debate how GNG actually applies in actual practice. For that, you need to familiarize yourself with the actual corpus of AFD discussions on similar topics, to see where consensus lands on points of debate. I am not making up my own personal interpretations here; the actual established precedent at AFD is that purely local media coverage is not enough to satisfy GNG for a political figure at the county level of office.

Every single mayor of every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single municipal councillor in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single police chief in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single fire chief in every city, town or village that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Every single school board trustee that exists at all would always pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. Unelected candidates for office would pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. But our rules are intentionally designed to keep articles about smalltown mayors and smalltown councillors and smalltown police chiefs and school board trustees and unelected candidates out of Wikipedia.

The thing is, as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have to keep in mind that our articles are highly vulnerable to getting misused: people routinely try to overwrite our articles about them with their own self-penned public relations puff bios, and other people routinely try to dirtwash our articles about people they don't like with WP:BLP violations and WP:POV commentary. The only defense we actually have against either of those things is the oversight of other editors — but that only works on topics that are of broad reader interest, and fails to be effective when it comes to more limited-interest topics. In an article about a municipal or county-level official who's known only locally, and does not have nationalized prominence, an inappropriate edit can linger in the article for months because not enough people are actually seeing the article to notice that an inappropriate edit has taken place. I am not making this up: earlier this year, I actually came across an article about a county-level political official which was making the unsourced claim that its subject had been arrested for smuggling small children into the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone to rape and cannibalize them. Yes, it's a blatant BLP violation, and yes, I revdelled it right away — the problem, however, will be more evident when I reveal to you how long that claim was sitting unchallenged in our article, because no responsible editor had actually seen it before I did: three full years. Yes, we really did spent three years calling a local politician a cannibal pedophile, because his article wasn't generating enough traffic to get that inappropriate content noticed and dealt with.

We can't properly maintain an article about a topic that isn't generating a broad and relatively consistent volume of readership — which is one of the reasons why our rules around local political figures are designed to be much more restrictive about their includability than we are for statewide or nationwide officeholders. We have to protect ourselves from the possibility of getting misused as a PR platform, and we have to protect both ourselves and our article subjects from the possibility of the article getting misused as an attack-edit magnet — and when it comes to local politicians at the municipal or county levels, the only way we can do that is to not have articles about them except where they can be shown to have wider prominence beyond just one local area. I did not make this up myself as my own personal tendentious rule; AFD established a consensus around this.

Oh, and by the way: NBC's local affiliate in Orlando is not the same thing as the national news division of NBC News — the WESH reference is local coverage from WESH, not nationalized coverage from the NBC network. And the Forbes piece is not about Rick Singh, but just namechecks his existence and provides a brief soundbite from him in an article about something else. So no, that's not "coverage about him" either. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat's rationale (local coverage of a civil servant). Noting also that Usterday has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD G5. Creator of page is a sock of Jeremy112233. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Retracted. Wasn't blocked until after page was created. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bringing a lawsuit against a company doesn't grant notability. We would have articles on anyone who had ever sued anyone for spilling their hot coffee on them when they wern't warned it was hot if we did. Amortias (T)(C) 19:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that a local assessor doing their job and challenging property valuations is entirely routine. Local coverage about such cases happens all over the country. The article seems to be to be highly promotional, perhaps written to influence a reelection. MB 04:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A county property appraiser needs to be notable for more than a single action to justify an article. His suit against Disney interests might be worth some sort of article, but that does not justify a biographical one on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

89.7 FM Ponoka, Alberta[edit]

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

Another newly-licensed radio station which has not yet launched. As per numerous other recent AFDs, this is no longer a valid notability claim under WP:NMEDIA in and of itself; a new radio station is no longer eligible to have an article until it has actually gone on the air for real, and does not qualify for an article the moment the regulatory agency grants the initial construction permit anymore. Delete, without prejudice against recreation once the station is actually on the air. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unlaunched stations do not enjoy the presumption of notability assumed for established/operating stations, and it's far too soon to determine if the station has, or ever will, launch, especially considering that the station only just got approved last week (so they have until September 2, 2018 to launch, and even that is barring an extension). Until there is verifiable evidence to indicate this station is broadcasting, we can't have an article on it yet. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Unlaunched station, and we don't know if/when it will become notable. If/when it does, we can recreate the article. But it's not notable now. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:17, 20 September 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 09:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per WP:Crystal. Should be made an article after it has been launched.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is WP:OR. Sandstein 08:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Agency Theory[edit]

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

This article appears to be an attempt to post an academic journal article on Wikipedia. While no copyright violation can be found, the article appears to comprise original research and synthesis, drawing new conclusions based on the cited source material. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the firstmost source cited doesn't seem to contain the term? Seems like mostly heavy WP:SYNTH as mentioned by nominator. This is all I were able to find to use the term in our article's context: [22]. There is the general concept of agency theory, and the word "cultural" is sometimes latched on to that term. But these other uses that I were able to find were different from our article's. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiDan's explanation. It's pretty clearly ripped right from an academic paper with all the broken reference formatting left intact. Jergling (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom and editors above. (some academic journals now advise article authors to do self-promote their published articles on Wikipedia.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:)Just solved disambiguation problem. Now I'am working to simplify the topic to make it more understandable for the readers. Also references are made (to solve the problem "orphan page") on its all'agency theory page and adapt complex system (CAS). The problem of disambiguations is resolved. We look forward to your comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadif89 (talk • contribs)

@Dadif89: Disambiguation is not the problem here. Nor is the complexity of the article. The article is too complex for most Wikipedia readers to understand, but that can be fixed. The problem with this article, and the reason it is being considered for deletion, is that it appears to comprise a great deal of original research, which is not what Wikipedia is about. You need to find a more conventional venue to publish your article, such as a journal on social systems or some such. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:CAT is not a my personal idea. It is (at least) 10 years old. It is a successful paradigm not yet represented through Wiki: my proposal is to talk about it, refferring to the main systemic authors which contributed to the theory development (Beer, Schwarz, Yolles etc)

@WikiDan61: Cross referencing improved:

in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_systems
in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_systems_theory
in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis 12:57, 21 September 2016

Comment I'm coming around on this one. It's going to take a lot of work to make this article accessible, but I understand that the author has written a review of the topic rather than an original treatise on the topic. Since other editors have agreed to delete, I won't withdraw the nomination, but rather change my own position to weak keep. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61:: @Jergling:: @E.M.Gregory: @Mr. Magoo and McBarker:

Dear editors, we are working a lot to fix the page on the light of your kind suggestions. Thank you for your comprehension. I had also the pleasure to share the page with your Yolles Professor in the person who has asked me to post this comment on his behalf:

This wiki entry is not an attempt to introduce new material to wiki. It is not original research and synthesis, since much of it comes from two books by Yolles in 1999 and 2006, plus additional publications over the last 9 years. This website is also a reflection of the book by Guo et al (2016) that defines cultural agency theory in most of its aspects, and is a summary of previous wok. The intention is to ensure that the new paradigm, which is now mature, is illustrated in terms of its antecedents. In particular, the work of Eric Schwarz, seen to be very important and almost lost to the academic world except through the work of Yolles and his colleagues, does need to be recognised historically. A tribute to the work of Schwarz has now also been entered into the wiki site, who died in 2015 with almost no recognition of the significance or potential of his work...a very sad state of affairs for such an important but overlooked academic.--Dadif89 (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, nothing in the article indicates that this is a unique or notable concept. In fact, it never actually defines "Cultural Agency Theory"; instead, it lists what it CAT could potentially do (which is essentially nothing). It's mostly cited within a small ring of closely-connect authors (Schwarz, Beer, Yolles), which does not indicate notability. The content of several sections is basically word salad which does not serve to describe the concept at hand, instead opting to say "the sky is blue" in as many ways as possible. Unsurprisingly, the freely available references are written in a similar manner.

In my opinion and outside of the scope of this AfD, it smells like postmodern bunk. It really gets my goat that there are academics out there throwing math- and science-isms around like this and and believing it's comparable to someone using actual math and science to advance control theory. It's like the academic version of a mimic - none of the cost and all of the reward. -Jergling (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jergling: Systems and network theory are increasingly being applied to social systems, with an eye toward understanding the behaviors of populations on a macro scale. These applications have already been applied in the field of counter-terrorism and organized crime, and could lead to all sorts of sociological advances. This is not pseudo-science, or a case of academics throwing around "science-isms", but actual science with actual, concrete outcomes. I agree that the article is vaguely worded and full of jargon that conveys little meaning to the average reader, but the same could be said for most of Wikipedia's articles on topics related to relativity theory or quantum mechanics. Complex subjects are often difficult to boil down to language accessible to laymen. I hope this article can be improved to meet that goal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not trying to discredit cybernetics/social systems theory as a whole (although I'd appreciate it if you could give references to its applications in criminology). It's specifically the way this article (and the sources) are written. This content seeks to describe, rather than analyze or extend, a laundry list of systems concepts to no apparent end. It would be one thing if it were a list of assumptions building used to draw a logical conclusion, but instead it's just a list of assumptions and long names for simple concepts. I'm reminded of the slough of "nature inspired algorithms" that showed up here a month ago all describing roughly the same trivial and naive methodology and claiming to "potentially solve" the Travelling Salesman Problem. -Jergling (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the opening to respond to comments about not defining what CAT is. In other words, I tried to explain in simple terms (even the average person to understand) a systemic theory --Dadif89 (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks like a review of primary sources discussing cultural agency theory (CAT) and earlier theories it is based on. As such, it is a synthesis of primary sources that does not belong on Wikipedia, per WP:SYNTH--we don't write articles drawing our own conclusions about primary sources, we summarize secondary sources, such as published reviews or books on CAT. I've been unable to find independent secondary sources on cultural agency theory, so in addition to synth problems, this topic also seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Lastly, even as an academic work, this "review" has major neutrality problems. Everything I have found suggests that CAT was created by Yolles and colleagues. Yolles credits Schwarz and Beer with earlier work upon which CAT is based, but despite this article being about 80% centered on Schwarz, there is no evidence that Schwarz created CAT or ever called it that. This is a tribute piece to Schwarz pretending to be an encyclopedia article on CAT. Without independent reliable sources discussing cultural agency theory in depth, we cannot write a neutral WP:N, verifiable WP:V article on the topic. Hence deletion seems warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the comments on this page, Maurice Yolles asked me to bring his point of view. I quote:

"In response to the reviewers, a lot of changes have been made. For instance the insightful comment from the reviewer "nothing in the article indicates that this is a unique or notable concept" has been addressed reflecting the uniqueness in the summary, and creating a definition in terms of its use. Another useful comment is that it is "mostly cited within a small ring of closely-connect authors." While this is correct, one must question the significance of this comment. It is a paradigm supported by a group of people, with its own website (now indicated in the website): http://www.octresearch.net. However, its growing popularity is represented through an increasing download of its papers. For instance the paper cited by Dauber et al has had in excess of 5000 downloads and 27 citations in under 3 years. A new book defining the topic is also coming out this month published by Cambridge University Press. Two authors in the group also have "advanced standing" ReseearchGate ranking, principally due to interest in this work. An attempt to reduce the "word salad" has been made, including a tightening of references. Additional adjustments to the website include moving text from the dissipative systems section into the Schrwarzian modelling section where it belongs. More wiki and other links have been created for technical terms, and the text has been smoothed in an attempt to improve understanding. The text overall now properly conforms the the wiki model. Elaboration has also been made to the background of Schwarz, who should not be another lost hero."^[1] Dadif89 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think is an important voice that was actually missing in wikipedia. The citations are correct. and it is well written. It should be kept on the wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf1974 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please keep it. The subject is important and the content is well written. Can be arobust reference for scholars and students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.147.25 (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark viking: The page has been structurally modified trusting that, in this way, it can be maintained on wiki. the images with copyright issues were removed. And about secondary sources: it is coming out a book using CAT by Guo et al^[2] If the problem is with history and foundation, we can keep only the first sections: 1 What is CAT? 2 The Nature of Agency, considering this page as an important point of view in systemic theory, actually missing in wikipedia.Dadif89 Dadif89 (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment @Dadif89: Actually, if the article is retained, I would recommend deleting the section on the "Nature of agency" as Wikipedia already has an entire article on the topic (Agency (philosophy)), and the content here represents a content fork which is undesirable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dadif89: From the Google Books page for the Guo, et. al., book[23], I see that it has not been published yet, so obviously cannot be a source at this time. If/when the book does come out, one of the authors is Yolles, the originator of CAT. Hence the book cannot be considered an independent reliable source by Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT criteria. Without independent reliable sources, no one can reliably write a neutral, verifiable article on the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Pacific Union College[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Found no significant coverage of the topic as a group or set in independent reliable sources. Regards, James (^talk/_contribs) 18:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously, this is the sort of list we have quite often here - see Category:Lists of university and college leaders. This one has the additional benefit of providing information about a lot of people who, while presumably notable as college presidents, do not yet have a wikipedia article. St Anselm (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The position is defining, and the list can say a lot concisely. It makes sense to have this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can you explain precisely how you think this fails LISTN? 'Cause I just don't see it. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In view of the thumbnail biographies provided, this is a useful substantive article. Merging it to the article on the college would unbalance that article and is thus inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Karina Chmiel[edit]

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

Nearly 10 years ago this was one of my first prods. It was clsoed as keep, but with arguments that seem very obsolete now - mainly, she exists on Google. Well, that's not sufficient today, and it does not seem that in those 10 years she got any more notable - I don't see any reviews of her works, any awards, nothing. Pretty much a Tolkien fan artist, whose work was used in some books/etc., but that fails WP:ARTIST. On a side note, she still does not have article on pl wiki, which has a much more lax criteria for notability of biographies. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a relic of a time when non-notable fan cruft survived on assertions like "the one topic that defines Wikipedia is Tolkien". Even then no one claimed that Chmiel passed the notability guidelines for artists, and she still does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 19 September 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 09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The later arguments for Keep appear to be stronger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Abse[edit]

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

Fails both WP:NACADEMICS and the WP:GNG – can't find any independent sources that mention Abse independently of his more famous relatives. "Contributed to a journal" is not a claim to notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of 18 may pass WP:Prof#C1 in the field of psychology, and sources exist for WP:GNG Xxanthippe (talk).

WP:PROF says "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied" (although I don't have much experience with that guideline so it may be that that part is ignored). Don't think h-index on its own is a good indicator of notability. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not notable enough. CLCStudent (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:JNN for an explanation of why that opinion will (or at least should) not be taken into account by the closer of this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least as WP:AUTHOR, with over a 1,000 library holdings; he's not notable for WP:PROF of course, but the holdings are enough. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete sources are about his more famous relatives and give him passing mention. Fails GNG - we don't have to beyond that. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source here describes Abse as a distinguished psychiatrist, a paragraph here in NPR, a brief mention here. His paper was cited by 21, this one by 11, wrote a book here printed 8 years after his death, a brief mention here, and cited here and this paper was cited by 55. A reference says equally high-achieving but very different brothers, the important psychoanalyst Wilfred Abse (1914-2005).... Meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Euryalus (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Boot[edit]

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

constant inaccurate changes being made Hanbev (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Geoffrey Boot[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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per John. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Estate agent with an expensive hobby, but he was on UK TV recently in a programme about air racing. The deleted, uncited claims appear to be true and could be reinstated if anyone was interested enough to do it properly. I came here to work out why he was being called "Baron" in the programme—an unusual title in England—and I know now. Helpful.--103.250.141.213 (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Keep - Neither source confirms his notability, since one is local and the other has nothing to do with him. On the other hand, I don't mean to commit WP:ITSUSEFUL, but the IP editor above seems to suggest that this person might be notable for a sport or a historical example of someone who purchased the title of "Baron". I'll look into this. Jergling (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: He is a member of the Isle of Man House of Keys, which is a national parliamentary body. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this inherently passes GNG. See this news article: http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/colourful-past-of-new-mhk-baron-boot-1-7462204 Jergling (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Gazette (a formal publication of UK central Government, BTW) entry indicates that his arms were awarded "with chapeau". Wikipedia again to the rescue: Barons in Scotland#Chapeau: It all depends whether his was a red hat (gules) or a blue hat (azure) to show whether his is an inherited title, with land, or one acquired by transfer. His 2011 success in the British Air Racing Champions Jubilee Trophy from the Royal Aero Club is documented here. The event is supposed to be modelled on the Schneider Trophy races, but they were historically important in aeroplane development. Nowadays only for hobby flyers.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems like notability has been established on account of his role and the sources, which should probably be put to use in the article though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pankaj Rag[edit]

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

NonNotable Civil Servant. An office in the civil service is not inherently notable unless it can be shown that the subject has done something to distinguish themselves. More importantly, the sources have to specifically be about the person. It would be easy to find google hits when the subject has a common name and often announces government decisions. But notability needs to be shown independently of this routine news. As far as I could see, I did not see anything to distinguish the subject from a run of the mill civil servant. The coverage has been more about stuff related to his office than actually about him Uncletomwood (talk) 05:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete pending much more RS coverage; that one source is good, but we need more than a single interview for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I !voted keep in the first afd, and I stand by that decision.

Firstly subject is not only a civil servant but also author of around half a dozen books, a notable aspect that nominator missed.
Sources such as this one published by The Economic Times and another by Indian Express definitely adds credibility to the claim of notability of subject.
Additionally, full-page review of his book 1857: The Oral Tradition was published by almost all national mainstream media houses. It makes subject a strong candidate for inclusion per AUTHOR#3 too.
Sources: Outlook India, Times of India, Tribune India, Telegraph India, Indian Express, The Hindu, The Hindu2, DNA.
There are few hindi sources, I was able to find. This one says, Pankaj Rag has written a book titled Dhuno Ki Yatra on Indian film music, which is an excellent work in this field. Another one introduces subject as the famous hindi poet and historian. I believe all these sources give a fairer idea on the question of notability of subject.
And why there is not a trillion sources for his books published in Hindi languages, Wikipedia Project India has an essay at WP:INDAFD to answer that. Anup [Talk] 05:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another significant coverage of subject as an author by Economic Times. Anup [Talk] 09:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as Director-General of the National Archives of India, at least. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reference in multiple reliable sources present and as mentioned by Anup, subject is also author of multiple books.Pratyush (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of multiple books reviewed in reliable sources such as the Times of India and the Economic Times. Director of the National Archives of the second-largest nation on Earth. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

One Safe[edit]

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

This is a 5 minute film that was produced by User:Gbnproductions who has sought to promote it and himself. Nothing notable about the film. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No reviews, no notable awards. Jergling (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless [24] can be considered a reliable source. The Geneva Film Festival ref is also blank. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find no significant coverage of the film, or evidence of historical significance. However, per WP:NFO, a film doesn't necessarily need to meet the general notability guideline if it has won a major award. This film has won a few it seems. If it was successfully argued that one of those awards was notable, then I would consider changing my vote to keep. Yvarta (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kevin L. Walker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NACTOR criteria for inclusion. A PROD nomination was removed by the author (who appears to have a COI based on contribution history, promotional tone, and off-wiki activity) with the reason "has appeared in multiple notable films". He has starred in one, but mere appearances in others don't mean much. The numerous sources in the article aren't coverage of the person, they are coverage of a recent film, giving trivial mentions to the person. Or they are primary sources (interviews and such). This fellow may be up-and-coming, but up-and-coming doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of references here but none of them appear to be reliable -- even if they were, there's nothing in them to establish notability, per @Amatulic:. A Train^talk 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a touch of WP:TNT. This is strictly a vanity page with an overabundance of links to notable entities, in an apparent attempt to inherit notability from them. The tone is over the top, and this article should be promptly deleted. Possibly Salt as the article was previously deleted (in 2011). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant over the top promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as this article has shown enough to suggest, regardless of improvements, none would actually be substantial and convincing, the works listed are trivial and anything else added is simply attempting to mirror and sugarcoat it. SwisterTwister talk 00:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sort of WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arakkal Dhanwantari Temple[edit]

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

Notability FlorenceJoyner (talk) 15:40, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the temple may exists, it seems quite improbable to reliably source the contents of article. Anup [Talk] 16:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article topic does not appear to meet WP:NPOL Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Montt[edit]

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

Not notable. This article is a collection of minor achievements, includingh being candidate to deputy two times and being councillor of a commune. It is also promotional. War ko ^talk 16:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a municipal councillor in a place the size of Lo Barnechea is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and neither is being a non-winning candidate for higher office — and the sourcing here is nowhere near strong enough to get him over WP:GNG either. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: 1. It is councilor of a municipality, 2. He has been director of a major Chilean public institution as is General Directorate of Credit Pledgee (DICREP).Andya Andya ^Andya 03:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(1) "Councillor of a municipality" does not pass WP:NPOL; municipal councillors qualify for Wikipedia articles because municipal councillor only in major internationally famous global cities on the order of New York City, Los Angeles, Toronto, London, Tokyo or Berlin. Lo Barnechea is not in that class of cities, so it's not a place where the municipal councillors get articles. (2) Being a director of a public institution is also not an automatic inclusion freebie — it can get a person into Wikipedia if there's enough reliable sourcing about them in that role to pass WP:GNG, but it is not a claim of notability that exempts a person from having to be much better sourced than this is. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed candidates for national legislatures are not notable for such, only successful ones. In general local municipal councilors are not notable for their position and nothing suggests that Monttt would be otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While if you do a pure headcount there's a clear majority in favour of deleting, none of those "Delete" opinions even tried to address the reliability of the sources found by User:Cyphoidbomb. Odd changes from IP editors are not grounds for deletion. I suggest we come back in a few months and see if anything more has materialised, a second discussion might give a clearer picture. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pardes Mein Hai Meraa Dil[edit]

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

Recently created, unreferenced article consisting only of a cast list and an infobox that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since opening this nomination a very brief lead has been added. However, neither it nor any of the other changes in the 46 subsequent edits have included any sources, whatsoever. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect until ____ happens - Hi Aussie, using the Indian news search tool, I find some detailed mentions like this and this. This source is generally considered reliable, although they seem to be reporting rumors about the series being based on a film, and that the series will be shot in Austria. Not a great choice for content, but in terms of multiple reliable sources presenting significant coverage, I'd say that the GNG threshold is probably met. As far as I know, the TV WikiProject doesn't have specific notability criteria akin to WP:NFF, which requires that some aspect of production (ex: principal photography) commence before an article can be created, so I don't know how this series would be any different than, say, any upcoming Nickelodeon TV series article for which there were few reliably published details. So I lean toward keep, but also think a redirect might be an alternative until ____ criterion is satisfied, whatever that would be. (Seems like something the WikiProject TV community would have to discuss.) For instance, if we said that an article should not be created until a reliable published source releases a proposed launch date, then this article might be a candidate for redirect until a reliable source announced a premiere date. This source indicates a speculated October 2016 premiere, but BollywoodLife fails WP:UGC in my experienced opinion. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've added some sources, which started to sway me but now we have anonymous editors removing the sourced content and adding unsourced claims in its place, so I'm not sure where to go. Maybe redirection with the redirect being indef semi-protected? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what's up with that? Redirect could be an option. The claim that it has been moved to 2017 makes me a little more wary about maintaining the article, but homeboy didn't source that, so I dunno either. I'm starting to feel like erring on the side of "too soon" might be the way to go. It's hard to justify an article when there's very little being said about it. The series is supposed to air next month but nobody's written anything about it? Seems weak. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am aware of what this is. The channel unofficially declared that the show might not be broadcasted at all. So it can be just a hoax. It can be created later when things are more perfect. Varun FEB2003 12:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON. I see speculation, gossip and trivial coverage of this thing, nothing substantial. Anup [Talk] 16:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Anup on this one. FalconK (talk) 05:19, 5 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 move. Consensus is that Ibiza Rocks would be notable. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibiza Rocks Hotel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only one proper source - BBC - which on the face of it appears to partially convey notability, however it doesn't really. It's an archive of a radio show from 5 years ago and just mentions the venue name and nothing else. Other results on a search are run of the mill mentions of a hotel on the party isle. If anything, I would've thought Ibiza Rocks itself (the entire brand, not the hotel) would have its own article and this would've been a subsection on there. I'm surprised it didn't have its own article, but at the same time, I can't see anything that helps the hotel pass GNG. Rayman60 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I didn't realise this article already had been nominated and had passed 4K/4D. The most obvious advocate was Dr Blofeld who posted 15 sources, which at first view would unequivocally support passing GNG. However I looked into this. The sum of all to me lends itself to incidental mentions rather than significant coverage. Here's my detailed findings

Source 1 Perhaps considered strong coverage. Cannot locate original but seems bordering on an advertorial?
Source 2 Seems to be about the festival rather than the hotel - although the hotel is mentioned in the headline
Source 3 Again mainly about the event rather than the hotel, but does mention the hotel as the venue. Editorial content by a non-notable travel company
Source 4 A competition giving away tickets to a gig at Ibiza Rocks. No mention of the hotel.
Source 5 False positive? Has words 'Ibiza' and 'Rocks' but separately, no mention of anything Ibiza Rocks related (within the free preview)
Source 6 Decent coverage of the project prior to its opening
Source 7 Industry publication. About the concept of Ibiza Rocks which I must again stress is a separate but linked entity to the hotel from a wiki perspective
Source 8 A rape took place at the hotel. It was mentioned as the location of the crime. Absolutely an incidental mention and not significant coverage
Source 9 Another false positive. Has Ibiza and Rocking in headline but no mention of Ibiza Rocks Hotel. Does mention another hotel, Pikes Hotel, part of the Ibiza Rocks brand but again separate. Has its own article.
Source 10 Mentioned as part of a journo's summary of their trip to Ibiza
Source 11 = not found
Source 12 False positive, again about the other venue.
Source 13 Mentioned in Billboard in small article about launch of Mallorca Rocks
Source 14 The event more than the venue is mentioned in the listing in this 677 page book of European party destinations. The book is not notable. If we said books like this convey notability, just about every licensed premises in the world will be fighting to put their own article on here.
Source 15 a repeat of 13

Whilst anecdotally I always expected the entire brand to be notable enough to warrant an article, I don't believe what I see for the hotel is sufficient having looked into it. I think coverage warrants an Ibiza Rocks umbrella article encompassing the event and venue, info on offshoots like Mallorca Rocks and info on Pikes Hotel. I just don't think there's enough to warrant a stand-alone article, especially in the absence of one for the brand and feel it would probably be better presented in the manner just described. (If I had the foresight and knowledge, I would've created the article, populated it, moved some info over and redirected.)Rayman60 (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to the brand and allow revision there. Both nominator and Rayman60 comment that in their opinion a page on the brand is warranted, and the hotel could be covered there. This is silly. Just move the stupid page and allow refocusing there. --do ncr am 21:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libido Blume[edit]

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

Band without any indication of notability per WP:MUSIC. There are sources, but they don't show how the band clearly meets any of the criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred:

Please check links and references in order to assess notability

CocoMusic (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)CocoMusic[reply]

Okay. Reviewing what's there at the time I nominated:

Dimatitis: Unable to assess, will assume there's at least a page on the band (and see #7).
Blogspot: Not reliable.
BJCEM: Does not give any in-depth coverage.
Mic: Album review.
Avopolis: Article is on Sigmatropic, not Libido Blume.
Postwave: Again, article is on Sigmatropic.
Rocking: Quotes wholesale from Dimatitis.
Second Avopolis cite: duplicate of Rocking.

So, I think we have exactly one source, and it's not clear from the article or from the soures that the band meets WP:MUSIC. I guess WP:GNG can be looked at as a reason for deletion as well. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 19 September 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 09:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sly Cooper#Characters. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sly Cooper characters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another long, long list of non-notable characters from a video game series, written from an in-universe style. Unsourced. A quick search on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine shows very little results. No in-depth coverage, development or reception of the characters. Redirect to Sly Cooper. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There are really only four principle characters that are in the series, the rest nearly all one-shots that can be briefly mentioned in the specific games. These characters can be easily summarized on the series page. --MASEM (t) 18:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. 831⁄2k of unsourced prose... incredible. Like all other articles, there are no sourced claims to independent notability of the character set here. Cover it in the character section of its parent article and expand summary style. Can always merge from the page history as needed. czar 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 18:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. There's really no need to keep any of the content in a case like this, so either outcome is fine. Without sources to establish overall notability for the topic, there is no need for an article at this time. TTN (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sly_Cooper#Characters. The characters do not appear particularly notable outside of the series, and sourcing is virtually nonexistent. There doesn't appear to be much to merge here, as the major/secondary characters are already covered in that article. —^0xF₈E₈ (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list of characters from notable fictional franchise. As such, the topic is notable because the parent article is notable. This is not "inherited" notability, as the list could be appropriately merged into the article... but there's simply no need to do so. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im confused. Your stance is literally the definition of "inherited", and then you end it with "but I'm not talking about it being inherited". Please explain how it's notable, without any third party coverage, without its notability being inherited from the parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Inherited would be The Force Awakens not being automagically notable since Star Wars was. A list of Star Wars: A New Hope characters (ignoring the fact that that's a clearly notable list for purposes of an example) is a subset of the topic 'Star Wars', and per WP:SS could be merged into that article and exist there using its coverage to demonstrate notability. There's a fundamental difference between "Is an element of..." and "Is a successor to..." and fictional characters lists have the same notability as the works in which they appear, but are simply put into their own lists for readability's sake. Jclemens (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Even ignoring the fact that that still sounds an awful lot like splitting hars to avoid an "inherited" issue, there's still issues with your argument. Splitting per WP:SS is recommended upon a particularly large article size. The Sly Cooper parent article is barely at 50K including formatting text, and the character list info, if properly written, would be far far shorter. There's no size reason for this to be split off either. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- per nom. It is simply not true that a character list article is automatically notable if the parent work of fiction is. Even if that were so, this article is completely unsourced, chock-a-block full of badly written excessive trivia, and written in an in-universe style. There is no content here that could be conceivably kept in any form. Reyk _YO! 07:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The characters don't receive coverage themselves. It's almost entirely wikia-style plot rehashing, so I don't even see anything worth merging that isn't already present in the game articles. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & then redirect to Sly_Cooper#Characters. Unreferenced essay and original research, with no secondary sources covering this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Net Timoney[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NARTIST. Contested PROD. shoy (reactions) 17:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography by User:Spacecadetnet on a recent graduate. Given references on a student work auction etc. do not meet the WP:NARTIST or broader WP:BASIC criteria, nor am I finding anything better. At best WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. The subject graduated from art school two years ago. Please! Bearian (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E Sharp (programming language)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no outside sourcing, and a quick Google search didn't bring up anything that didn't appear to be scraped from here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just another non-notable abandoned software project. I can't find any secondary sourcing, code.google.com is shutdown and the project never migrated elsewhere. Looking at the commit history it was never updated after it was uploaded. — Strongjam (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No refs except to the project's Google Code page, which seems not to have been updated for years. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move and rename to List of murdered hip hop musicians.. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of deceased hip hop artists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Rename to List of murdered hip hop musicians and purge. Because all human beings eventually die and hip hop musicians are human beings, as currently constituted this list is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Hip hop musicians do have a greater tendency than musicians in other genres to die of violent causes (e.g. gunshots) rather than natural ones, so that's a noteworthy constraint that can be placed on the list -- but a list of all hip hop musicians who ever died of any cause at all will eventually include all hip hop musicians who ever lived at all, so it's not a useful or maintainable list in its current form. The list should accordingly be renamed and purged to include only those who died in a noteworthy way, rather than indiscriminately including all deaths. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - List should included only those who did not die a natural death. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There were very similar suggestions to rename at the last AfD, but it was never done. I decided to just do it myself. The large number of non-manslaughter deaths caused a bit of a problem. I separated the two categories into separate lists and renamed the article as Lists. The idea can of course be improved. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Bearcat. Dying in and of itself is not a useful criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as I suggested a while back on the talk page. JTtheOG (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Eventually, they'll all be dead. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This list will eventually be obscenely long considering that everyone dies and the list will be never ending. This list is more about hip hop musicians who died somewhat young (62-ish or younger). Velociraptor888 18:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

93 Feet East[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

shocking article. completely unreferenced. just a few lines of promotional text. Rayman60 (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: This is a WP:G11 candidate if I've ever seen one. No assertion of notability is made, and it is basically a sales brochure. Safehaven86 (talk)
Speedy Delete completely promotional and non-notable. MB 16:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would speedy it myself it if hadn't somehow existed since 2004, and looking at the history it's never been any better than this. The things you find in the far reaches of Wikipedia ... - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
93 Feet East is actually a pretty well-known live music venue in east London: I've seen several gigs there. But yeah, that doesn't count as evidence of notability, and apart from this article in London's Evening Standard when the club was forced to close down for a few months in 2013, there's nothing else I can find, so delete. Richard3120 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Indeed, I am familiar with the venue too, expected notability as it is of *some* importance in the London night scene....however appears not to quite have anything beyond listings etc. Also am shocked at how that article stood in that form for over 2 years!!!!!Rayman60 (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the venue is part of the redevelopment of the old Truman's Brewery on Brick Lane I agree with a point in the previous AfD that you could well get an interesting article out of the brewery's redevelopment, and therefore there might be more coverage of the venue in an architecture or construction magazine rather than a music magazine. A redirect to Black Eagle Brewery#Old Truman Brewery is also a possibility here. Richard3120 (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am finding some sourcing, like Evening Standard, The Guardian and NME. A redirect is fine with me, or else just trying to start this article over from scratch. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would quite like to see a good rewrite, even a short one. It's the sort of thing that is plausibly notable, but the sourcing is proving the difficult part - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just made myself WP:INVOLVED by declining the speedy deletion. I just suggest that options other than outright speedy deletion should be considered. AfD is not for cleanup, but it's also^{[citation needed]} for looking into other solutions. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertising with content such as:

"Available for hire for corporate conferences and business meetings, birthday parties as well as showcases, screenings, photo shoots, filming and more."

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

RPGamer[edit]

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

Can't find any sources that would back up its notability here. The sources used in the article is from GameFAQs, Alexa and its own website. GamerPro64 16:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, unless we get RSes actually about the site - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried a few simple searches, but they mostly just turned up trivial mentions, such as "according to rpgamer, the game will be released next week" or whatever. That's good for establishing reliability, but it can't establish notability. I tried a few more restrictive searches to find hits about the site's history, but the best I could find was this one-sentence mention. I don't think there's significant coverage of the site itself. Too bad; I'd prefer we had articles on reliable sources cited on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Chelsea Mee[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. All but two of the sources are IMDB links, the other two sources aren't secondary. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON as most of her credits are for unreleased projects. Strongjam (talk) 15:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither Youtube nor IMDb are reliable sources, we can not build an article on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are informed of the afd.Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Article is unsourced, self-published or agency writeup published. No significant roles in films. The films aren't even notable, and the one that has a link she isn't star billing so doesn't meet WP:ENT. No news articles on google search. So she's in a show called Empire for an episode as one of the celebrities that walk on the red carpet? How is that notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Aoba47 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This one looks like a total PR piece. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Gyant[edit]

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

non-notable blogger with minimal significant/independent/reliable coverage Rayman60 (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. How has this stood for so long? It's ref'd entirely to primary sources by the subject of the article. (On a funnier note, I was pronouncing it "G-yant" instead of "Giant" the whole time I was reading the article) Jergling (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have adequate indicia of notability. Is this even a real person? Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 24 September 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 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per WP:NOT.Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk→ Be a guest 09:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Euryalus (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nona Creative[edit]

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

Rely on non-credible media references. Merely connecting articles. Article is written only for company promotional and advertising purposes. No News feed is found on search. No significant coverage by independent media. Total 20 Employee, not publicly listed. Nothing significant or notable about the company to be here. does not meet notability criteria. Light2021 (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands - the refs are terrible (what slightly RSes there are are corporation deals or passing mentions) and fail to demonstrate WP:CORP or WP:CORPDEPTH. Deepest source is a podcast interview on a blog. That's quite apart from the obviously promotional nature of the text - David Gerard (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be a notable South African company. I improved the article's sourcing and removed the swaths of promotional texts. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked your changes. Mostly your listed cites literally don't support the claims they're against. (I moved one to the claim it actually supports.) - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, thanks for the improvements. I still think the available sourcing pushes this company over WP:GNG, but the article itself can obviously still be very much improved. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as both the information and sources are PR-based, the company of course is going to have a PR environment so sources cannot immediately be said as convincing; with this said, there's no substance of an article. The Keep vote claims there's somehow enough for GNG, but how can this be if the article noticeably has no substantial claims of independent notability, let alone substantial sourcing? (The article essentially Sony states what there is to advertise about the company) SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no claim of notability or significance; sources are not there to meet GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 20 September 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 09:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as ive said before, just because a company is in South Africa and not the west, doesnt mean its not significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnstonphil (talk • contribs) 11:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That hasn't been the delete reason for any of the people above. The article's sourcing actually needs fixing and notability demonstrated - David Gerard (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shabir Parry[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. References provided are primary, social media or blog links. I cannot find any reliable sources to confirm notable role in upcoming soap opera. GILO A&E⇑ 14:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-reliable sources. Could not locate reliable sources for notability verification. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, and the sources used are first party or non-reliable. JTtheOG (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "An upcoming actor in an uncoming Tv soap opera"? created by a single-purpose account who is definitely either him or someone closely related. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Anup [Talk] 04:37, 24 September 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 09:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jona Laks[edit]

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

Reviewing articles for notability and bringing them here is a task that sometimes bring bad karma, and it is with some sadness that I bring this one here. Still, personal feelings aside, I do think that this Holocaust survivor is not meeting WP:BIO. Her name does appear in several news stories and books, but in passing: like most Holocaust survivors, she was interviewed, including both scholars and media like BBC, and her story is briefly - in one of two paragraphs at most - mentioned in several sources, but I count only several. She is an activist, and that got her several more mentions, up to an including a speech in front of UN. However, that's all I see. No in-depth coverage, and we do not have any rule saying that Holocaust survivors are notable. This one-sentence biography cannot be expanded beyond a short paragraph at most (through I do know that shortness is not a reason for deletion). Please note she is already mentioned at List_of_victims_and_survivors_of_Auschwitz with the exact same sentence that accompanies her bio: "One of the "Mengele twins" who was selected and used for involuntary medical experiments.". With all due respect, we do not need a one-sentence bio that repeats that, inclusion in the list is perfectly sufficient. I suggest redirecting it there, and perhaps adding a sentence to the list about her activism, this will fully complete any coverage of her we may have. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Page could be easily expanded. I've been working on some Olympian articles, but I believe this article could definitely make it to DYK with some effort, and perhaps even GA. From WP:NBIO, The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. - A documentary film, making of an organisation (such as Eva Kor) and more don't qualify? There are no primary sources. All sources are reliable. Many other news sources covered it thoroughly. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 09:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded as much as I could, but all that I was able to do is to add 2 more short sentences. If you can do more, with sources that show she received in-depth coverage, I'd be happy to withdraw my nom. I do think that merging to the list is the best outcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have expanded the article, but so far I do not see that we are saying anything except she survived the holocaust, became an acitivst, spoke in front of UN and had several interviews. Still no in-depth coverage, and with utmost respect for her ordeal and sincere appreciation for her activism, neither seems to make her notable by itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I expanded the article with reliable sources. Anyone who has spoken before the United Nations General Assembly and appeared in several documentary films speaking about the Mengele twins experiments, not to mention chairs an organization, is certainly notable IMO. Yoninah (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do commend you on squeezing everything possible from the sources; if this survives the DYK I'd be happy to positively review this for a DYK. However, until this is kept, I still stand by that speaking in front of a UN and appearing in one documentary (not about her, she was just one of the subjects of it) is not sufficient for notability, since I can't match those events with any GNG requirements. And certainly chairing a minor activist organization that has practically no media footprint, is not notable, and we most certainly DO NOT have any criteria that states chairs of organizations are notable. PS. I do find it annoying that she seems less notable then a plethora of minor sports and entertainment celebrities, but that's a problem with the policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was many of the subjects of Mengel's brutality. There is no justification for having a stand along article. Her actions and the coverage do not merit one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Closer - I hope consensus is established and it is not relisted, as to conform with the DYK "Expanded at least fivefold" guideline. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is unclear. Lourdes 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that even with the current state of the article there is not enough in-depth coverage cited to establish notability. I also find it annoying that we allow articles on "a plethora of minor sports and entertainment celebrities" but have more stringent requirements for others. (I would like to see notability for military awards of less than the "highest level of valor".) MB 04:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dat Guy, gng. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Does it violate WP:NOT? Does WP:TRIVIA apply. No clear consensus amongst editors on these subjective questions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Night Football all-time team standings[edit]

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

WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOTSTATS T v x1 13:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly it needs sourcing, but sources are readily available in a very large amount of third party media sources. Passes WP:GNG easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly violates WP:NOT#STATS. I agree it can be easily sourced, but this is not a topic for an encyclopedia. Prevan (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (P.S. Go Hawks. We're no. 1.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's more than just statistics and certainly can be expanded with commentary. That's an editing issue, not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Here is the apparently applicable portion of WP:NOTSTATS: "Excessive listings of statistics. Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context. Long recitations of statistics reduce readability and may be confusing. Where large quantities of statistics are appropriate (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012) consider placing them in tables to enhance readability; where large quantities are not appropriate (e.g. the main article United States presidential election, 2012) omit excess statistics and summarize." Readability is not reduced and the article is not confusing. Perhaps there could be more explanatory text, but the solution to that is to write more text, not to delete the article. Furthermore, as recommended, the stats are contained in a well-organized table. Upon examination of the policy given as grounds for deletion, I find that the actual policy itself does not support deletion in this instance. Lepricavark (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why strong keep? What's so important about football games played on monday that we should keep a stats page dedicated to it?T v x1 09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep because, as I clearly demonstrated above, the reason given for deletion is a misapplication of policy. Lepricavark (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not violate NOT, no convincing reason for deletion has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Can you give any convincing reason (and by that I mean policy and guideline based) reason what is so important about football games played on monday that we should keep a stats page dedicated to it? Tvx1 09:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is not just on games played on Monday at night, but of games played on the show Monday Night Football. The significance comes from the games all being played on a show that has been broadcast in television's prime time slot since 1970 and has become #4 on the List of longest-running U.S. primetime television series. It is now broadcast in the US, Canada, Australia, and many other countries. Because of this widespread viewing, it has developed a significant viewer base an a huge amount of third party coverage in reliable sources: ESPN and USA Today just as a very small starting sample. Because of this large amount of coverage in the news, we find that it passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Monday Night Football passes GNG and that's why have an article on that which is of course not considered for deletion. What you have failed to prove (or indeed even adress) is that "the all-time team standings of football matches shown during that program" is a notable topic in itself, thus passing the GNG idependetely, meriting a dedicated article. T v x1 16:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is not on us to show that the subject is notable. You proposed the article for deletion; the onus is on you to provide a policy-based rationale for why it should be deleted. You have failed to do so. Lepricavark (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is if you use that as an argument in favor of keeping. Just posting a keep !vote without leaving a justified reasoning is meaningless. Such votes will likely be ignored by the reviewers. They review the strength of argument. The arguments for both sides. Not only those in favor of deleting. T v x1 17:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a very justified reason for !voting keep. I was able to demonstrate that WP:NOTSTATS does not apply to this article. I did not merely post a keep !vote without leaving a justified reason. Furthermore, if you cannot provide a valid reason for the article to be deleted, then that is definitely an argument in favor of keeping it. Lastly – and stop trying to ignore me when I point your inconsistency out — shouldn't you stop talking out both sides of your mouth and let whoever closes this discussion arrive at his/her own conclusions? Lepricavark (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing. If you must leave pompous, sanctimonious edit summaries like this one, then it would be helpful if you would explain how the policies you are citing apply to the specific case. Because for someone who feels competent to school others in Wikipedia policy, you have a tendency to misapply policies and then, when this is pointed out to you, insist that you are still right because the other person didn't demonstrate notability. If you can't prove a lack of notability, then these discussions shouldn't even be happening. Lepricavark (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a novel addition to Wikipedia. Monday Night Football games are distinct from other games, as they are nationally televised. These games tend to match two very worthy adversaries, emphasizing the significance of these games as opposed to average games. Teams also have to deal with the pressure of having shorter weeks (games are typically played on Sundays), also makes the stakes of these games even higher, as teams have one less day to prepare for their next game. There's plenty of media about Monday Night Football. At the same time, if this page is deleted, I think adding this page's content to the Monday Night Football page would be suitable. WikiGuy1980 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday and Thursday games aren't nationally televised? That's news to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this not an AFD for Monday Night Football. T v x1 07:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finite dataset displayed in a intuitive table is obviously not "Excessive listings of statistics". Standalone article is preferable to a section within the main article. Adhere to WP:BLUDGEON, please. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOTSTATS. The article is pure trivia, nothing more. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 01:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been demonstrated that NOTSTATS does not apply to this article. Furthermore, WP:TRIVIA states right at the outset that it is targeted at "lists of miscellaneous information." That does not apply to this article, in which the information is all tied to a common theme. Could you please elaborate on why you believe NOTSTATS and TRIVIA are relevant to this discussion? Lepricavark (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to engage everyone who suggests deletion (and neither really should I do with those in favor of keeping). Please just respect the AFD process and let the discussion run its course. T v x1 07:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encourage full discussions please. There is no crime in responding to posted comments. Further, the response to WP:TRIVIA is new and called for--to which I add the arguments at WP:DISCRIMINATE to help provide background to the scene.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time in this AfD that I have engaged a delete !vote. As far as I can tell @Tvx1:, you have not yet addressed once my observations about how the policies/guidelines in question do not apply. Rather than telling me to be quiet, why don't you offer a counterargument? Lepricavark (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just your opinion that they don't apply. I don't agree with it. T v x1 14:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that this is a list of miscellaneous information? What, may I ask, is miscellaneous about it? And how is the listing of statistics excessive? Lepricavark (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, being unsourced and indiscriminate collection of information. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- response the list is most certainly a WP:DISCRIMINATE list. Were you referring to another section of WP:LISTCRUFT? As for the addition of sources, that is simply an editing issue and not one of deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the very image of WP:NOTSTATS. I'm unpersuaded by Lepricavark's assertion that WP:NOTSTATS is inapplicable to these particular statistics; they are not contextualized at all, and the article is titled for the standings, not the competition. FalconK (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Addition I've added a brief commentary at the beginning. It can clearly be expanded to enhance the list article to meet any requirement of WP:NOTSTATS "Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context." --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 5 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. As there isn't any consensus as to whether the delete rationale applies at all to these articles, there can be no consensus to delete them. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009)[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:NOT. Can't see why we would have to dedicate pages to certain football ~~matches~~ games just because they were broadcast on a particular time slot by a particular broadcaster. Results belong on team and season articles. Can't see the historical significance. T v x1 12:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's obviously historical significance in the games prior to 1970, when Monday Night Football officially became a regular television series (back when it was considered rare and a novelty). And of course, not every single NFL game is televised in a weekly prime time slot (let alone what it considers its premiere television so-case). BornonJune8 (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2016

I think that it's apparent that being a Wikipedia user who hails from Belgium, you don't seem to totally resonate or have much grasp of the history or legacy of the National Football League (which is the biggest professional sports organization in North America). I could sense this when you said "football matches" instead of "football games". Therefore, you don't seem to understand why something like that is justifiable in part because it doesn't immediately confirm to your worldview or most immediate knowledge of sports. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2016

Comment Think twice before you decide to accuse someone from outside the US of not being familiar with football and the US way of promoting it. I have been a big fan of the NFL for a considerable number of years now and haven't missed a Super Bowl since Super Bowl XLII. The fact that I refer to the sport as football and not "American Football" like my fellow Europeans should have given that away. And your comments actually demonstrate that you have no idea whatsoever what is being nominated and why. Again read WP:NOT and remember that wikipedia is not only written for US football fans but for a worldwide readership. The nominated articles are not the articles on the US broadcasts dedicated to these matches, but the supplementary and utterly unnecessary lists of the results of all the games broadcast during that coverage. Nothing in your reply does even attempt to address how in any away the result of thursday, sunday and monday night football games have any exceptional historical significance over all the other football games that justifies tabulating the result and US only broadcast (reminders that those games are also broadcasted outside the US) time and channel of every such game every played. T v x1 18:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're more significant than any other football game during regular season, because they're the only ones that are being literally being played during said time (prime time) and day (well, Thursday and Monday). Just because you prefer the articles to have a more worldview doesn't negate the fact that they are American centric/based/produced broadcasts (unlike say, the Olympic Games for example) and games first and foremost. How is that any different than say, an American's point of view on NBC's telecasts of the European Premiere Soccer League. My point is that the majority of the viewers are American and vice versa, so shouldn't they count first. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2016

However the majority of wikipedia's readership is not and we write wikipedia for our readers. Not solely or even primarily for the US TV viewers. But this is all of the point. The discussed articles are supplementary results articles. They are not the main articles on Thursday/Sunday/Monday night football games' coverage and those articles will remain regardless. This phenomenon of rescheduling some games for the benefit of TV isn't at all a NFL exclusive or even US exclusive. For instance, the English Premier League soccer schedules most of its games on 15:00 local time. However every weekend some matches are played on 13:30 and 17:30 local time on saturday and some on sunday afternoon and even on monday evening. This is all for the benefit of TV (Sky Sports in this case). Yet do we have articles dedicated to these specially scheduled soccer games? No, of course not. Similarly my country's premier soccer league schedules the majority of their matches on saturday nights. Yet for the benefit of live TV broadcasts there are always is a friday night game, an early evening saturday game and some sunday afternoon and evening games. Do we have dedicated articles on the results of these differently scheduled games? No. Not even on the dutch language wiki. And you know why? Because the results of these games have no exceptional historical significance just because of their scheduling. And the same applies to NFL. If the Jets meet the Giants it just has no exceptional significance to the league whether one beats the other on a thursday, sunday or monday. T v x1 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Thursday, Sunday, and Monday night NFL games aren't rescheduled (well, technically, later on in the season, NBC can "flex" in a Sunday night game in they can replace one game w/ what's a more desirable match-up) just at random. And as I said before, there's only one game played in said timeslot not, multiple (or as you put it, some as if its checkered) at once games like in the morning (if you live on the West coast) and afternoon. Just because say, the Premier League has primetime games on their own, doesn't necessarily mean that their business practices are remotely similar to the NFL's. Plus, the dedicated live weekly broadcasts for the Belgian soccer league, don't even have their own individual, comprehensive Wikipedia articles to immediately refer to. And if the Jets play the Giants, then at least on possible significance is that they're pretty much guaranteed to play in a game that has the widely reach in viewers for the respective week. You're seriously entering a major slippery slope by saying that in your country the pro sports over their function like this (or the way that you consume live sporting events in Europe when compared to America) or that so it's not fair to just focus on America (or something to that extent or along those lines) BornonJune8 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2016

Nothing of your last reply has any relevance to this deletion inclusion. Why it's important to maintain comprehensive list of results in non-sunday afternoon games, connected to particular broadcasters? T v x1 21:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess that if there's going to be articles for prime time games then there should be articles for Sunday afternoon games to make it even!? Why is it important!? Well for one reason to say the least, only two teams at a time can play in the selected prime time slot (hence, why it's Monday or Sunday Night Football) and not virtually the entire NFL. It's basically much easier to keep track of non-Sunday afternoon (since they naturally, are meant to have a higher sense of prestige and concentrated focus) games than the other way around. BornonJune8 (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2016

No there should not be articles for sunday games to even it out. There shouldn't be any articles on the results for sports games based on when they are broadcast. Results should be tied to the teams who achieved them and to the leagues those games affected. T v x1 15:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not every team gets to play in a non-Sunday afternoon timeslot, hence why it's a more unique situation to track their "results". Of course we could just look at the respected teams' results for that particular season, but this is concentrated really, on the television medium, not the NFL and its teams in general or in a vague/broad-scale manner. It would be kind of counterproductive and undercutting to have an article on Monday Night and Sunday Night Football and yet not try to give some insight on whom ever had the opportunity to play in that coveted timeslot. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2016

Not to argue the point, but the idea that "not every team gets to play in a non-Sunday afternoon timeslot" is no longer the case, as the NFL has made it a rule that every team needs to play on Thursday Night Football throughout the season (as to keep a "competitive balance"). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you kind of misinterpreted/misunderstood the main point that I was trying to make. If you're team plays on Thursday nights for example, wouldn't you regardless (of the knowledge of the NFL's rules that mandate that every team has to play on Thursday night) play much closer attention/give it much more scrutiny by default than any other game (outside of prime time of course) during the season? You seem to make it sound like that we shouldn't treat this as a more special occasion or give these particular games more precedence since "well, everybody takes turns anyway, so why is it such a big deal!?" BornonJune8 (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2016

No. Why would I pay much closer attention/give it much more scrutiny because it's not played on sunday afternoon? It's just another football game. As I have stated before. Playing sports games on different timeslots than the bulk of the games is not by any means a NFL specific/unique practice. They didn't even invent that practice. I regularly watch my favorite soccer team play sunday afternoon or even friday evening matches instead of the usual sunday evening matches and the team certainly does not play much closer attention/give it much more scrutiny when they play on friday on sunday. On a side note, please do not sign your posts with incorrect timestamps. The post this reply is aimed was posted today and not on september, 20th like your signature wants to make us believe. T v x1 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by whether or not any single user on Wikipedia pays attention to anything. What matters is that there is significant coverage of it. Otherwise, this turns into WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:NOT#STATS. We are not a statistics website. Prevan (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia isn't a statistics website as you claim then please explain all of the articles in this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sports_records_and_statistics BornonJune8 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2016

WP:OTHERCRAP. T v x1 18:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that. It is perfectly appropriate to point to the existence of a category designated specifically for sports stats articles in countering the apparent claim that we should not have any stats articles. Lepricavark (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep articles clearly pass WP:GNG and WP:LISTN with a multitude of sources. I would support WP:SNOW to close immediately as a keep. While some enthusiastic editors seem to agree with me, it's only because they are right. These lists are clear keepers and have been around to stand the test of notability discussions for a significant period of time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However fails WP:NOT. What's so much more historically significant about the results of football games played on thursday, sunday and monday nights over the vast majority of games which are played on sunday afternoon that makes these games merit standalone articles for their results and broadcast times? By the way snow keep is not possible with already one delete support. T v x1 18:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query what specific measures of WP:NOT do you think the articles fail? Just saying it doesn't make it so.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply That wikipedia is not a directory. T v x1 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are any of the articles in question here. We would not use any of these articles to find the location or contact information of the Chicago Bears... that doesn't even come close to applying.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 points in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, so why do you single out just one irrelevant one. I'm referring to point 4. But please do explain to me how thursday, sunday and monday night football games have such a historical significance by default just by virtue of being played in those time slots that they merit dedicated articles on their dates and results.T v x1 21:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." This page is none of those either. The National Football League nor any of the broadcasting companies are involved here so far as I can tell, and I don't believe that anyone would come to this page as a resource for conducting business. The relevance comes because those are the episodes of the long-running television series and notability arises because of third party media coverage in reliable sources thus passing the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Are you deleting this article don't do this please save this article From being deleted please save it. 2600:8803:7A00:19:305B:692B:6CCF:46DA (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The articles don't establish notability and googling I can't find that the topic of "lists of games on X network" is notable. Articles on the "History of MNF" or "History of NFL football on TNT" are probably notable, but not lists of individual games. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a novel enough of an addition to Wikipedia. Monday Night Football/Sunday Night Football/Thursday Night Football games are distinct from other games, as they are nationally televised. These games tend to match two very worthy adversaries, emphasizing the significance of these games as opposed to average games. Teams also have to deal with the pressure of having shorter weeks (since the games are typically played on Sundays), also makes the stakes of these games even higher, as teams have one less day to prepare for their next game. There's plenty of media about Monday Night Football/Sunday Night Football/Thursday Night Football. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:34, 20 September 2016

I hope you do not delete this article because this is important and needs to stay as it as and it's also the end of the message. 2600:8803:7A00:19:305B:692B:6CCF:46DA (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: 2600:8803:7A00:19:305B:692B:6CCF:46DA (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

What matters is why and how is this important. It's not important just because you claim so. Please educate me on why it is important to tabulate that the Cleveland Browns beat the San Diego Chargers by 21-17 on some 1972 monday night. T v x1 21:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking at the whole picture in that regard. It isn't simply about the Cleveland Browns or San Diego Chargers that particular night of the year as if it's a minor footnote in history, encompasses the entire history of the Monday Night Football television series. Bare in mind, that the schedules aren't simply beholden to the individual teams (hence why their nationally televised appearances are being singled out above all else) but the entire history of the National Football League. This is not something that can easily be marginalized or not taken in for account of having heightened importance or significance. Just because you personally don't understand why it isn't important doesn't necessarily or automatically mean that you single-handily speak for the majority. BornonJune8 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2016

Perhaps you could explain why it is necessary to delete these articles. You claim above that "we write wikipedia for our readers", and several readers are chiming in here in favor of keeping the articles. Lepricavark (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet even more are in favor of deleting. Maybe you should read their reasons too. T v x1 09:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is no longer true. The !vote counter indicates a deadlock and numerous IPs have chimed in expressing their desire for a 'keep' outcome. There is currently no consensus for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd argue that "importance" isn't much of a measure. See reasoning at WP:NEED - notability is the measure, and WP:GNG pretty much covers that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Singling out games just because they're not played on Sunday is a non-starter. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have not seen a convincing reason for deletion. These articles do not, in my view, qualify as directories. Lepricavark (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please leave conclusions to the discussion's reviewer. Tvx1 09:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such statements are valid contributions to discussions. If you'd like clarification or details from the participating editor, you're welcome to ask for those. Attempting to prevent someone from taking a position does not belong here. We're working to make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of consistency, I suppose you will strike all of the conclusions that you have posted in this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They're not NOT, pass the GNG, and no convincing reason for deletion has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Haven't seen any evidence that the results of non-sunday afternoon games passing GNG as a subject. If you claim something passed GNG you HAVE to substantiate that. T v x1 09:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is your job, as the initiator of the AfD, to demonstrate why the article should be deleted. Besides, why are you making conclusions about Jclemens' !vote? Shouldn't you leave that to the discussion's reviewer? Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not my sole job. And when somebody makes a claim they are required to substantiate that. Regardless of which action they are in favor. Not doing so will likely result in said contribution not to carry much wait upon closure of the discussion. T v x1 17:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is your job. If you propose that the article be deleted, you must demonstrate why you hold that opinion. I don't know how you can disagree with that. Lepricavark (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misread. I meant it's not only up to me. It's very obvious you have not been on Wikipedia and that this is your first involvement with an AFD. I have been involved in quite a few, both as contributor and nominator, and I can assure you that many of this discussion initiated with comparable short statements have resulted in deletion of the discussed article(s). T v x1 15:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my first involvement with an AfD. I'm not sure how that can be obvious when it is false. I don't care how much prior AfD experience you have; in the three AfDs where we have interacted, you have never been able to provide a rebuttal when I point out that the policies or guidelines you cite are being misapplied. Lepricavark (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop talking about deleting this article it needs to end now and stop this debate about deleting this article. 2600:8803:7A00:19:305B:692B:6CCF:46DA (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: 2600:8803:7A00:19:305B:692B:6CCF:46DA (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
- Comment I too believe the articles should be kept. Discussing it is part of the process here at Wikipedia. The discussion will likely close within 7 days of it being opened. I'm in favor of closing it sooner but it doesn't look like that will happen. I understand, please be patient. Contact me if you'd like some help understanding.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL per the nom. There's nothing significant about these games as a whole at all. Individual games that would qualify for their own notability should either have their own article, or a mention in that season's article or team's article.

RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that aren't in most cases, but at the base value of the fact that they were the only games to be played and nationally televised in prime time, that's not easy to overlook or bypass. And the fact that Monday Night Football has been on the air now for over 40 years, there are likely going to be more "significant games" as a whole than insignificant. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2016

- Huh? If an individual game were notable, you would have us delete the article on it anyway?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I was saying if the individual games listed were notable in their own right, they would either have an article, or a mention on the league season/team page. As a list however this is not encyclopedic. I think you may have mis-read my comment. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't worry, I'm confident I mis-read it! That's why I asked. However, the second part I have to disagree on the idea that if the games were notable they would already be mentioned in one article or have their own. They are mentioned in this article already, and Wikipedia is far from complete. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Generalizing due to the decades of time involved and the newer broadcasting partners/dates, these games were picked as a/the league's marquee game of the week (1 of 13 ~ 1 of 16) including for rivalries, rematches of meaningful games from the prior season, marquee player matchups (ie, ratings interest), televised nationally throughout the United State, drive local fan interest and ticket sales differently, and inherently subject to national media coverage rather than just the local media of the associated teams of a typical Sunday game. Each is a distinct type of game, with specific game times, and different allowed days of game preparation including player return from injury. They are different in every way except the playing rules. The WP:NOTSTATS ("Excessive listings of statistics") argument is utterly lacking, though possibly appealing to those unfamiliar with the content. The supporting text and citations can be improved to provide this context to the casual reader as is true of many articles. Please adhere to WP:BLUDGEON. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles are notable and several of them do include key notes about the games that were shown like the page for NFL Network's Thursday Night Football. The only issue I have where a page would fail WP:NOTSTATS is NBC Sunday Night Football results (2006–present)#SNF statistics. To me that section of that article is an excessive listings of statistics. The games however are not as this information can be found all over Wikipedia such as team articles, NFL season articles, etc. This is just another way to present that same information and from what I've seen in Wikipedia there are multiple articles that contain the same information but different ways to present them. I'm not a big sports fan however when I talk with others about a particular game they always tend to reference if it was a Monday night game or a Thursday night game. The dates that a game plays on is very notable in the United States. Also these lists are similar to a notable TV show which has multiple articles detailing/listing the episodes. Essentially the game is an episode of Monday Night Football for example. What would improve these articles would be more prose interjected into them and expand on the viewership of each game if the number of people that watched a game is available. Some of the Monday Night Football articles have a list of the game's viewership which is beneficial and encyclopedic. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 10:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on every US TV broadcast incarnation of non-sunday afternoon football on Wikipedia. That is more than enough to house all the encyclopedic information on the subject. These additional articles on the results of non-sundae-afternoon games are overkill. There is no evidence that they have any greater impact on the outcomes of NFL seasons just because of their allocated timeslot or because of the identity of their US broadcaster. The Monday Night games' results list aren't even presented as TV show episodes but are merely the results of monday night games irrespective of the TV coverage. The "TV Show episodes" argument doesn't even carry much weight because there are clear examples of very notable TV shows like say Family Feud of Wheel of Fortune with wikipedia articles but without excessive lists of all their episodes. The is information is pure trivia and fancruft. There are sports with have a much greater worldwide importance like e.g. Association football or Tennis. Yet we don't have list articles like List of the results of football matches shown on Match of the Day 2, List of the results of FIFA World Cup matches shown on BBC1, List of the results of FA Cup matches shown on ITV List of the results of first monday Wimbledon matches, List of Wimbledon matches shown on BBC2 or List of US Open matches shown on CBS. Lists, like all articles, have to meet guidelines and policies. The ones discussed here fail to meet WP:LISTN, for a start, because the subject (this being "results of thursday/sunday/monday night football games") of them lacks notability. T v x1 15:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any article on a popular musician's concert tour has a "schedule list" (is that within itself "trivia" also) for the dates that they performed. I guess that's "different" than listing schedules for network television broadcasts of a major professional sports league since that's the "whole or main point" of those articles!? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nobody stopping you from starting an article of for those televised sporting events that you listed. You're really engaging in a slippery slope in that sports that you personally view/perceive to have much greater "worldwide importance" should have an similar article. Your main argument seems to be in that regard of "The NFL isn't that big in my country when compared to other sports like soccer or tennis so it doesn't (or I don't understand why) merit so many articles for this television coverage! And your argument for game shows is apples and oranges. Since Family Feud and Wheel or Fortune (and by extension, daytime soap operas) air in a weekday strip and don't have a clear cut episode identification outside of the day that they were first broadcast, it's much harder to keep track of than a once a week program. And bringing in tournaments like the FIFA World Cup or tennis majors is much broader in scale. I guess by that logic, there should be a list for every single Olympic event such as basketball broadcast by said network also. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just as much "apples and oranges" as your comparison of the football games to scripted TV shows. I don't see how my list topics are broad either. I deliberately chose very specific aspects of very specific events within those sports. I have no interest in creating these list, because contrary to you, I know they have zero chance of being kept as they are utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. And why do you go on the "my country" attack again? I used the word worldwide for a reason. T v x1 23:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the "my country" attack as you put it because you're the one you who first brought up the notion that NFL television results aren't aren't that important from your point of view when other sports that you're more accustomed to are perceived as bigger. I would be like me complaining about list of games/matches for tennis or soccer/association football from outside of America, since it isn't as big of a deal as the National Football League or Major League Baseball. The Super Bowl is one of the biggest sporting events in the world, not just America, so therefore, it's a worldwide event within itself. I find it funny and ironic that you talk about there being "zero chances", when you're the one who started this whole discussion in the very first place. And my point in comparing football games to scripted TV shows is that just like a scripted TV show, they're an on-going, serialized (in theory, the season itself is the storyline albeit in real life) program. You on the other hand, make it sound like that "well, why doesn't daily stripped game shows" get its own list of episodes and what not. You're list if broad in my eyes because you're mentioning other "special" events within a shorter time frame like tournaments (with is pretty much the same as articles for postseason event broadcasters for the NFL). BornonJune8 (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one football game every season is a "worldwide event" it doesn't mean that every regular season game is as well and that it's appropriate to have lists on the results of every non-sunday-afternoon football game. Others have supported deletion as well. There is a reason why they did. T v x1 20:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if you paid closer attention, there have been others you have supported keeping the lists on the contrary. And if the NFL isn't a "worldwide sport" besides the Super Bowl, then please explain their annual regular season games in London, England? But trying to exactly measure the worldwide importance (or how many people all over the world watch non-Sunday afternoon games) of the NFL when compared to the other sports that you mentioned, is really a highly debatable topic within itself. BornonJune8 (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on for 5 days and there is no end in sight stop talking about this article for deletion and get it over with now. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CLOSEAFD, discussions such as these typically last for 7 days.

What This has been in place for 7 Days and still not over and the ducssion needs to end now and stop being lazy. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 13:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A closing admin should come along sometime today and make a decision. Your comments requesting closing are starting to become disruptive (and I agree with you it should be kept). Please be patient.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Paul McDonald I Agree With That and I'm sorry and I aplogise for being disruptive I Won't do it again God Bless You. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've had some of these articles for more than decade because they utterly non-controversial. The nom is clearly engaged in WP:BLUDGEON with nearly 20 posts, appears to have basic confusion about both the sport and its terminology, and now has evolving reasoning for supporting deletion when opposed by those familiar with the content. Would like to see the discussion extended to hear additional views from those who might be avoiding due to the environment that has been created. Lastly, if deletion is supported, the content should be merged to the corresponding base articles -which is yet another good reason to keep the content in the existing stand-alone articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "bludgeoning" can really said to be happening on both sides. T v x1 20:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between bludgeoning and rebutting bogus applications of policy. I do find it telling that you have not once been able to refute my rebuttals. Lepricavark (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's only your opinion I haven't. There are number of people, all much more wikipedia-experienced than you, who have agreed with me. Wanna guess why that is? T v x1 16:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False. Not once, after I pointed out that a policy/guideline did not apply, have you done anything beyond telling me not to make conclusions or telling me that it is just my opinion, even though I, unlike you, am quoting the actual wording of the policy/guideline in question. Now you are telling me that I am wrong because of a perceived lack of experience, even though I am obviously experienced enough to actually read and interpret the policies instead of just linking them. There have been people who expressed agreement with you, but there have been also been experienced Wikipedians who agreed with me. You think that you can disregard my comments because you have been around longer, but I have made a much stronger effort than you to actually examine the policies in question. Lepricavark (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks Like This Article is going to end I don't think so. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please a third party should close this. Do not relist it as discussion (and those discussing) have been exhausted. WP:RELISTINGISEVIL--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could see treating the Monday Night Football results from 1970 to 2005 differently than the others. I could see those results beting treated like episode lists of other heavily watched prime time network TV shows. And in the days when there was generally one prime time game each week, that game did get disproportionate attention relative to other games. So I could see keeping those, but deleting the rest due to lack of notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are not presented as episodes of a TV show though. They are simply presented as the results of all NFL games that were ever played on monday. This is essentially an endless subject and we already had to split them into four lists to be able to house them. Doing a search in the sources does not yield evidence that this is notable subject. T v x1 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess while you're or we're at it, competitive weekly reality programs like American Idol or Dancing with the Stars are technically, not really "episodes" since they mostly deal with results (once you get right down to it) also. And exactly what do you mean, they aren't "presented as episodes" (you can't have it both ways)? What else can be done outside of presenting a detailed summary of the games individually. There's a subtle difference between a game within itself (at least from the personal point of view of the players and coaches) and the manner in which said game was covered by the media. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The content in the "Monday Night Football" results articles is not formatted as episode lists. Those articles aren't even tied to TV Networks at all. They are simple lists of the results of all football games which were ever played on monday. They are no appropriate for wikipedia in either format though. As you say the difference is subtle. To subtle to warrant dedicated wikipedia articles. Moreover, the results of all NFL games are already listed per team per season. Why should we list the non-sunday-afternoons again grouped by timeslot? T v x1 20:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, they aren't even "tied to the TV networks"? Only one network at a time (ABC and later, ESPN) has broadcast NFL games on Monday nights so by default, they are tied to said networks (especially with the various incarnations of Sunday Night Football, be it on ESPN, TNT or NBC). You're making it sound like there isn't a stark difference. These articles aren't just about the New England Patriots or any other individual team for an entire season. If you're going to go that route, then we might as well list which networks and what time and day of the week they played their 16 game season in their respective yearly articles. Again, that isn't the main point! It would kind of be like going through a needle in a haystack if you had to go further to look or guess which TV networks/day of the week/time any individual team played week in and week out during the reason. BornonJune8 (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the formatting is a determining factor. The lists in question are not formatted as episode guides because that format would not make sense for this. But Monday Night Football was a network institution for many years and received much coverage on its own, separate from the coverage of the individual teams playing on any given week. And so a relevant list that serves a similar purpose to a typical episode list makes sense to retain. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, if the issue with these particular items is the formatting of the lists, that is an editing concern and not a valid reason for deletion. 19:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes I Agree with that so save this article if you can. 2600:8803:7A00:19:90D3:876A:C38A:6C10 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are eight articles being discussed here. Not just one. T v x1 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that these IP users are coming here because they see a deletion notice while reading an article. This was the reason for my earlier observation that we have readers who do not want these pages deleted. We are here to serve the reader. Lepricavark (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Overall after reading all of the comments I still don't see a valid reason for deleting every single article present here. Each are notable in their own right the only issue I've seen is the Sunday/Thursday night articles are also labeled by broadcaster instead of years like the Monday Night Football articles. NFL Network Thursday Night Football results (2006–present) could be easily renamed Thursday Night Football results (2006–present) as each listing notes who was the broadcaster. All the Sunday Night Football articles can be merged/resturctured similar to the Monday Night Football articles.

Examples could be:

Sunday Night Football results (1987–2005)
Sunday Night Football results (2006–present)

This would eliminate the need to have the network in the title. However to claim that these articles are WP:NOT would consequently have an impact on other categories and smililar articles because lots of other editors could claim WP:NOT and reference this debate as precedent. This is not WP:OTHERCRAP this is a serious reason for concern. The initial nomination hinges on all eight articles fail WP:NOT and the fact that item #4 on WP:NOT was mentioned after the nomination seems like a stretch to me. To bring my point forward using the reason WP:NOT#STATS would impact Category:Sports records and statistics and similar categories and articles because someone can tag every article in this category as WP:NOT#STATS and cite this as a precedent. Now granted someone outside of the United States and Canada might not find any significant reasoning for these articles to be broken out based on day however to an American football fan the days are very important and the games are often referenced by the night they play. Even a non-sports fan like myself in the United States and in Canada would recognize a game by saying referencing a game by the night they played. Every team participates in the Sunday afternoon games except for when they receive a bye that week. So a lot of discussion and notability about the games come down to the night (Sunday, Monday, Thursday) they played. So to the point I have not seen a clear reason as to why these articles should be completely deleted. There are opportunities for merging them to deemphasize the specific broadcaster and to enhance the articles by providing information about the viewership of the games but no clear reason to completely delete them. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 01:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the Sunday Night Football results articles are like that is because ESPN Sunday Night Football and NBC Sunday Night Football are different. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main articles detail the difference between the two however the three Sunday Night Football results pages can be restructured down to two and given a generic name would be the only changes. We don't need the name of the broadcaster in the title they can be listed similar to NFL Network Thursday Night Football results (2006–present)#2014 season with the broadcaster of that game listed in the table (either ESPN, NBC or TNT). ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 05:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When is this going to end. 2600:8803:7A00:19:4089:9E6B:E460:AFF8 (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin comes along and makes a decision or re-lists it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This really, really clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS. The data is essentially trivia, like a list of IIN numbers or weather reports. The participants in the list are generally notable, but such lists as these do not meet the same bar. Monday Night Football should exist, but we do not need a dozen articles for its proceedings; the same goes for the other shows. FalconK (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is comparing weather daily results (which is much harder to remember/keep track off/keep a yearly record off and are strictly regional and therefore, varies from place to place) the same as a weekly nationally televised sporting event that is essential to a team's regular season record? Not every statistical data is the same! BornonJune8 (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same in that it is indiscriminate. This page and the others like it list the complete proceedings, important or no, for all time. FalconK (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Response there is a good amount of commentary throughout the list, thereby exceeding the requirements of WP:NOTSTATS "Any statistics should be accompanied by explanatory text providing context" and "Where large quantities of statistics are appropriate ... consider placing them in tables to enhance readability" --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The commentary is also trivia. FalconK (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate collection of information (statistics); we do not exist to aggregate sporting results merely because the matches took place. Sandstein 19:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Query how is it indiscriminate?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not indiscriminate--there is an extremely bright line for what we take and don't take in these pages. They easily meet all of our sourcing requirements, are reasonable lists and reasonable breakout articles. If we are going to delete these, we should also go and delete all the lists of episodes for TV series. This is exactly the same thing. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lists related to Monday Night Football; delete the others. Monday Night Football records may not receive the same level of attention they did when it was "destination" TV, but they still receive disproportionate attention from the US sports press. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into existing NFL seasons as well as any significant games into te main Monday Night Football article. It's said best above on the comments regarding avoiding endless trivia. South Nashua (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NOTSTATS, and most of these articles are poorly sourced (if at all) so there's no indication that they meet WP:LISTN. Lizard (talk) 08:46, 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. Sandstein 19:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN College Football on ABC results[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT T v x1 12:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the games are notable, but the topic itself is not notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic. WP:NOT; (WP:NOTTVGUIDE also). Eagleash (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly as notable as any other television series. This one happens to be about sports.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as per above. With regards to @Paulmcdonald:, yes, the series itself is notable, and we have an article for it, but the results of each individual game are not notable enough for an article. Generally for routine sports broadcasts, we have one article for the main subject NFL on CBS, Fox Major League Baseball, etc. but there's absolutely no need to have a list of results for every single game. It's WP:LISTCRUFT at best. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' the contents of the list are just fine. If they're deleted in this article, they'll simply be transferred to the main article. The main article will then become unwieldy and more difficult to read, use, and maintain. Keeping a separate list article is a good option in this case. Further, list of episodes of television shows is quite common. As to the "results of each individual game being notable" this is not a bulk nomination of a large number of articles, each article on one individual game but is instead one article covering the results of all of them. List articles exist for just this very reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No the contents is not just fine. There is absolutely no need to tabulate the results of every college football game broadcasted on TV. Neither in a dedicated article, nor as part of a parent article. It would not be moved upon deletion of this article but outright deleted. Football games, be it college or NFL, are primarily what they're called, football games, and not TV shows. Notable and/or historically significant results are mentioned in team and season articles. Wikipedia is not a directory of every broadcast of sports games. T v x1 17:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Networks devote one each week during the season to say an individual television broadcast of a on particular sporting event such as a college football game. So technically, they are television shows (and not just a one time, annual special event like the Academy Awards), just not of the scripted quality (in essence, the games themselves are episodes just like any other TV series that has its own individual article). I guess, by extension, something like say Meet the Press isn't really a TV show since it covers real life political events. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are not television Shows because they are not programs created and produced by one particular broadcaster. They are simply coverage of sports events. Sports event which are broadcasted by multiple tv stations all over the world. Not to mention tens of thousand of fans attending the live games. So why list the results of games transmitted by just one of the many broadcasters? The important result are mentioned where they belong: in teams' and season articles. T v x1 20:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess by your logic, weekly scheduled coverage of sporting events like Hockey Night in Canada isn't really true "television show" (which the networks mind you, may millions if not billions of dollars in rights fees) nor is Monday Night Football/Sunday Night Football, etc. even though they have a regular timeslot like any other program? And why should the thousands of fans attending live games negate this point? More people are likely watching them on television (if they can't afford a ticket or aren't year the city) than they are attending them in person. I guess, while you're at it, you might as well say the same thing about sitcoms that are "filmed in front of a live studio audience" or game shows like The Price is Right that have a big studio audience. And even if the sports events like say Monday Night Football are broadcast by multiple TV stations all over the world, that doesn't change the fact that the game results/stats are ultimately what they are. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: you're saying because of all the coverage it gets all over the world it's not notable?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No completely wrong. I'm saying that because of all the coverage it gets all over the world it's utterly inappropriate to have a results lists of the games shown by one US broadcaster. Sports results should be tied to teams and leagues, not broadcasters. T v x1 21:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the article in question is about college football games that were broadcast by ABC (the American Broadcasting Company). It isn't exactly a generic article that isn't devoted to a sole broadcaster. I guess by extension, there shouldn't be an article that covers the program itself, since people all over the world watch college football every week regardless of what network its own or originates from. I also guess by extension, that there shouldn't be articles that list television series by network (e.g. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.) since, people outside of the country can access them. And again, sports results like wins and losses and nationally televised appearances on one particular television network for any given week, are too separate entities. BornonJune8 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's "completely wrong" ?? It seems like I've asked you to clarify your position, then you've said that's an incorrect assessment and then repeated it back to me. "Do you mean 'XXX'?" "No, I menat 'XXX'"--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't bother to post meaningful replies I won't either. I've clarified above. T v x1 09:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm letting you know that I find your argument to be very confusing and would like more clarification. Wikipedia:Confusing arguments mean nothing. Perhaps the closer of the discussion will get it, but I think you'll be taking a chance on that. You might be right and I might be wrong, but we'll never come to an agreement if I don't understand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. One-eyed horse thieves in Montana would be offended to be left out if trash like this were kept. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How do you think this violates WP:SALAT? Please provide reason, just saying it doesn't make it so (I've typed that in AFD twice today...)--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Lists that are too specific are also a problem." Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I absolutely don't understand that type of rationale or argument. If lists that are "too specific" a problem, then what are they supposed to look like or be about exactly? BornonJune8 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something other than games produced by one particular entity and broadcast on one particular network. Doesn't that sound the least bit arbitrary? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not violate NOT, no convincing reason for deletion has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean not convincing reason has been provided for deletion? Did you even read the above delete comments. I think we should leave these conclusions for the admin who will close the discussion. Can you provide any convincing reason why we should keep a list of all football games shown during specific coverage? Remind you, wikipedia is not a NFL fan site. Tvx1 09:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please be careful to avoid any statement that may be considered a personal attack. We can all have confidence that the closing admin will make a balanced decision to determine consensus. And if not, we can take it to WP:DRV. Editors can contribute to the discussion as they see fit. If you'd like more details or explanation, please ask for them. If they are not provided, that's something that a good closer will consider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT and the argument made by User:Tvx1 above. If the argument to keep is that this is a TV show with "episodes" like a standard show, then we would need a list for Match of the Day as an example. It's not an encyclopedic article, and any significant games either have their own article, or are linked on the corresponding article for that team or season. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I never got an explanation how WP:SALAT applies. Maybe you can explain it. As for WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, that is listed as an "empty argument" in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It's not that it's right or wrong, it's just--WHY is it "unencyclopedic"?--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would anyone have to justify themselves to you personally??Tvx1 10:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still haven't gotten an explanation how WP:SALAT applies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because this list's subject is not an appropriate one as outlined by WP:SALAT. T v x1 10:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And I still haven't gotten an explanation how WP:SALAT applies. This is a discussion. If you believe something fails a measure of any kind, it is your duty to explain why you believe that. Otherwise, it's just a non-argument per WP:JUSTAPOLICY and should be ignored.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        This list's topic doesn't not constitute one outlined by WP:SALAT as an appropriate one. How difficult is it grasp that? T v x1 15:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        It's extremely difficult because you are not providing a specific answer. For example: this is not a list of people. It is not a list of companies and organizations. It is not a list of lists. It is not a list of words. These are the four specifics under WP:SALAT as I read it, and this particular list we are discussing is none of those. Therefore, in my eyes WP:SALAT does not even apply. Are you making the argument that you believe that only those four types of lists named in WP:SALAT are the only types of lists we can include on Wikipedia? Or perhaps you are arguing that you believe this article is either to broad or too narrow... I don't know. And until you make it clear, neither will anyone else.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I'm a little less convinced on this one, but I don't like how the nominator neglected to explain in his nomination statement how this article violates WP:NOT. It is the nominator's job to do the legwork in gathering evidence to demonstrate why the article should be deleted. He did not do that. How are we supposed to evaluate the nom's argument if all we are given is "Per WP:NOT". Per what part of WP:NOT? How does that part apply? Also, I am not impressed by the nom's effort to silence a keep !voter, especially since the !voter in question, unlike the nom, had the courtesy to do more than merely link a policy and make a vague claim. Lepricavark (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Changed to full keep upon further review as there are still no valid grounds for deletion. It is very disappointing that some editors are still supporting deletion on grounds that have already been thoroughly debunked. Lepricavark (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Regardless, not only the nominator's arguments are taken into account open closure of the discussion. They review the arguments of all participants. T v x1 17:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's incredibly lazy for a nominator to attempt to erase an article, which in this case probably contains hours of work done by other people, without even providing a good reason. I'm not so sure that the TVGuide argument applies here. To me, TV Guides are for upcoming episodes, not ones that have already aired. Otherwise, you have a lot more articles to propose for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From point 4:historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable. In this case however I cannot see the historical signifance of said programming. And regarding your first concern, WP:LOSE T v x1 07:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this AFD (and currently in others) you have argued that other editors that we should "leave these conclusions for the admin who will close the discussion" but here you making a conclusion in your assessment. Doesn't seem fair to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 10:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what part of my reply contains a conclusion/analysis of the other parties' arguments?? The other contributor's post contained that person's analysis of all the delete contributors' arguments. That's what I replied to back then. T v x1 15:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be your comment "I cannot see the historical signifance of said programming" --Paul McDonald (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying "I cannot see the historical significance...." just screams of personal preference (and not something that could benefit any other "curious" reader or dare I say "history buff") regarding a sport and its accompanying live television series that you likely don't follow, understand or care much about. BornonJune8 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if I can see the historical significance? WP:LOSE (which is an essay, not a guideline or policy) states "It is unfortunate that editors put effort into writing or maintaining articles that do not meet Wikipedia policy or guidelines." That doesn't apply in this instance. If you are going to put someone else's work up for deletion, you should have a good reason. You don't. Lepricavark (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates WP:NOT#INFO Prevan (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Also delete Category:College football on television results. BigGuy88 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the information is worthy of inclusion in the main article ESPN College Football on ABC, but the list is very large so it makes sense to have a separate list article just for the results. By placing the statistics in a table format with additional information, the article actually meets the requirements set forth in WP:NOT#INFO/WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (which are two different shortcuts referencing the same policy).--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia isn't a T.V. guide. If it's kept, remove the "time" column. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, being an indiscriminate collection of information and a TV guide. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Response the two comments above argue that Wikipedia is not a TV Guide. That's true, but it doesn't apply. These events occur in the past, not the future. No one would come to this page in Wikipedia to look up information on upcoming games, only on past ones. Secondly, it most certainly is a WP:DISCRIMINATE list of information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The show is notable; its proceedings are not independently notable. FalconK (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I went back-and-forth on this a lot. Given that A) the show is notable and B) the games in question are often notable (lots of coverage etc.) the list article is probably justified. I'd actually like to see it grow and have some actual meaningful coverage of the games or important milestones of the show. But... even as a football fan, I can't really see who would ever _want_ this information as-is and I fully understand the WP:NOT arguments as this feels, as written, like a WP:NOT violation. But expansion is possible and it's not a WP:TNT case. Only issue with expansion is size. Hobit (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind - The Final Frontier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, the username of the creator suggests a WP:COI Kleuske (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is on a book that was published nine days ago. Some text appears to be lifted directly from other promotional sources, such as [25]. I searched briefly but couldn't see any reviews or WorldCat listing. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:NBOOK. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for Speedy Delete - WP:DUCK on the COI and only ref is an ad for the book. We shouldn't be letting this person use WP as advertising space while we wait for consensus. Jergling (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knw-Yr-Own Records[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Search found nothing beyond passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability independent of Knw-Yr-Own Records, What The Heck Fest and Anacortes. —Mythdon 12:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - standard searches not showing any usable significant mentions to show notability. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:00, 23 September 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 09:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- self-sourced A7 material. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. I'm not sure why this has been relisted; the article makes no assertion of notability whatsoever. FalconK (talk) 05:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I removed the PROD on this one because when the PROD came through, Google Books was giving three results that specifically talked about the label. It was my intention to investigate more thoroughly later, but real life and other wiki projects and all that. Because of the way Google Books changes the pages hidden for copyright reasons, it is currently only giving one result, and this is only a casual mention, so I can't defend the label on a GNG basis. 2 notable bands isn't really a "roster of significant artists", although I consider the label to have a "length of history", but it fails NMUSIC#5. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:30, 5 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, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. W. Elverum & Sun[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Search found nothing beyond passing mentions. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable record label. There is no coverage in any reliable sources, either in depth nor as a brief mention. This article is made up entirely of artists belonging to the label, half of which are red links anyway, further establishing lack of notability, and the list takes up almost the entire article, and with no assertion for future improvement. If there needs to be a list of every artist belonging to this non-notable label, then a brief mention in the infobox of the article concerning those artists will suffice. —Mythdon 12:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - standard searches not bringing any thing up to show notability. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mythdon and nom, not notable. One query however: is there definitely no separate notability standard for record labels? It seems like a bit of an oversight. ¡Boz zio! 05:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ivana Raymonda van der Veen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable singer. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:MUSIC#12 is not met, it is about major national FTA networks, not small community cable station and the programs should be about her not just a basic compilation of home made videos. Charting is not met, all claimed charting is on bad charts. None of the awards are major. The views of this page may look nice but don't make for notability. Coverage is a bombardment of minor mentions, non reliable sources and primary sources, none good for WP:GNG.
Last AFD had a clear concensus that she was not notable but was procedurally closed due pointy behavior and disruption. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 16:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Rebb ing 16:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, whose assessment I concur with. There is one RS in the whole thing: a review (which gave her 5/10). The other substantive-looking content is an interview, but it's on a personal blog (on a neglected WordPress that appears to serve pharma spam to Google Translate). There's tremendous amounts of puffery and nothing of substance - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DEL8 and FAILN as the subject does not appear to be notable. The only qualifying significant, reliable, independent coverage I could locate is the cited Washington City Paper review, and that is not nearly enough. The subject also does not appear to meet any of the special BAND criteria; even if she did, I would likely find notability to be lacking on account of the paucity of coverage. As an aside, I disagree with the nominator's characterization of the previous discussion—a characterization soundly rejected at DRV. Rebb ing 21:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. None of my above assertions above about the last AfD were rejected at DRV. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. This is probably the best coverage I could find; the source itself is a blog on the website and I'm hesitant to use these for GNG due to the potential for promotion. Considering that there is literally no other independent sources and the subject doesn't pass WP:BAND either, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as does not meet enough of the GNG criteria. I looked at the previous AfDs and it looks like there is a major self-promotion problem here. The source is solid enough, but states, "a very thin, very blond pop singer who has about 35,000 YouTube subscribers and clearly would prefer to be more famous than that." Kind of sums it up. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Le Volume Était Au Maximum[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBAND. (NOTE: Strange - this isn't linked from Johnny Love (producer) so the disambiguation of that link is probably wrong, but article difficult as fails WP:V - update did he really create this band when 12? - I will unlink it) Widefox; talk 21:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 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 10:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly a vanity page with no RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JIC Capital Management[edit]

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

NN company. MSJapan (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:01, 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 10:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. No notability. The one reference in the article includes only a passing reference to the subject. Did not find other in-depth coverage. Also note that the editor that created this article only edited on that one day and the other edits were mostly categorization to other finance articles. Seems like unusual behavior for a new editor. MB 17:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no claim of significance here and the coverage falls far short of what is required for WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable private equity firm going about its business; no indications of notability or significance. The article exists to promote the business, so WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 06:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NANI KRISH[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON: Producer and director of an upcoming film The-Oppera and the film's notability is also in doubt. The page was also been deleted four times (see previous deletion log here and here). GSS (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Makes a good case of WP:GNG. Sources: Indian Express, The Hans India, The Hindu. Anup [Talk] 16:38, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: And that's it 3 sources what else? The only notability I can see is He is the son of musician and composer U. Srinivas also Indian newspapers are increadingly happy to act as PR agents for anyone who claims to be a star. Maybe it pass GNG with these three soruces but still not yet for a stand alone article. It can be redirect to his film but same as I said before the film's notability is also in doubt.

I also want to add that the article was earlier created by User:Editor6666 who is already block for removing speedy deletion tag from Nani Krish which been deleted for 3 times (A7) already and user:Writer6666 recreated it by using uppercase. GSS (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one, Metro India. Mind the quality of sources. Subject should not be held culprit for being son of a notable person. Is there substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, yes there is. Your comment, "maybe it pass GNG with these three soruces but still TOOSOON", is self-contradicting and honestly, to be blunt, rubbish. Subject passes GNG, thus qualifies for a standalone. (I'm not interested in being a part of long chain of question-answer. Wait for other editors to weigh in their opinion. That it should be "kept" is my opinion and I'm not going to change it.) Anup [Talk] 18:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note there is a sock puppet investigation going on these accounts at SPI Bandababubanda. GSS (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 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 10:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pls remove the deletion tag sir because NANI KRISH is an notable person i dont know why you people are keeping deletion tag pls keep this article dont delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conquer192 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom. Listed references do mention subject, but coverage is not in-depth. Agree with WP:TOOSOON. MB 14:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just not quite yet notable enough really. Eagleash (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON and this is salt evasion. So this needs to be salted as well per Nani Krish. --Majora (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EasyRide application[edit]

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

per WP:CORPDEPTH Rahul^{Text me} 05:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:57, 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 10:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not have a single source; compliance with WP:N is nonexistent. —Codename Lisa (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. Not-notable. Also note that article created by SPA probably with COI. MB 04:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's hardly anything I could find about it. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly promotional page with no independent RS, and none to be found. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means, and I meant to comment sooner, none of this is anything else but PR, in that goes to specifics from interviewed information, company and financing activities, and to finish it: no actual sources. This is PR and that alone, not at all close to encyclopedia materials. SwisterTwister talk 20:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 support for deletion here. A merger did not gain consensus it seems, best to continue discussing it on talk. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heartless Moon[edit]

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

Bare tracklist Rathfelder (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. There are reviews: [26] from AllMusic, [27] from Exclaim!, and [28] from CMJ. Someone who's into this sort of thing could probably find more sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 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 10:23, 19 September 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 09:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I believe that the critical praise for the album from reliable sources justify retaining and expanding what we have here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Brendan Gamble per WP:NALBUM. This is, after all, a bare track listing. Maybe someday if someone writes a lot of stuff about it, someone else can split it off into its own article. FalconK (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I added the above sources to the article. I don't think I did a great job, but it's more than just a track list now. If someone wants to work it over and expand it, that'd be great, but WP:NEXIST says they don't have to. I don't know if it got reviewed in other sources besides the ones I found, but the fact that it got a glowing review in CMJ leads me to believe that it probably attracted some kind of attention elsewhere, too. I don't know where to look to find reviews for sensitive pop songs, though. If this were a speed metal album, yeah, maybe I could dig up more than three reviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article recreation may be pursued if better sources are found. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Versobank SA[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; zero independent sources. Unfortunately this AfD is required because PROD was rejected by creator of article without any substantial improvement. Brianhe (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands - this is completely unreferenced. Google in English finds very little; GNews throws up hits in Romanian, though I can't tell if they're substantive or passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to be a lot of mentions in non-english sources, and even english ones[29]. No comment yet on keep/delete until finished reviewing sources... Also of interest is the Estonian Wikipedia version of et:Versobank AS (view auto-translated version[30]) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the et.wiki article is of any help establishing GNG: it contains four cites to the parent company of the subject, and three to a single local publication. Brianhe (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, non-en wikipedia's usually have a much lower bar for notability. They can be useful sometimes to give hints on where to search for possible significant coverage. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORPDEPTH - it's part of a WALLEDGARDEN of stuff related to Cyprus. MSJapan (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and lack of RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references I see unfortunately have to be discounted per WP:ILLCON. Beyond that, I don't see any other references to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ILLCON as noted above. Currently not finding enough mentions to support WP:CORP. No prejudice to re-creation if better sources are found. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tradepedia[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP: the sole independent source is a mere regulatory directory. No depth of coverage demonstrated. Brianhe (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - no references, a basic WP:BEFORE shows mostly press releases - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only the company age would affect notability, but then there's no actual substance of any significance or notability; I frankly consider this speedy material as there are simply "significance claims" because of other companies. SwisterTwister talk 23:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have done speedy but wasn't sure if it was eligible after a contested PROD. A Cyprus IP who is part of a set who seem to be interested in the same articles as the author for some reason removed the PROD w/o rationale or improving it [31]. Should brush up on my deletion process awareness. - Brianhe (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forget notability, there is absolutely no claim of significance here. This is a comprehensive failure of WP:CORPDEPTH. This is speedy eligible but I guess an AfD is better here to "lock down" the article title should it ever be recreated in the future. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable evidence of notability provided or found. AllyD (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lemongirl. I'd even go so far as to say she plagiarized my rationale by voting first, because that's exactly my thought on the matter. MSJapan (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Securities and Commodities Authority (SCA)[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:CORP notability standard, and the article only serves as a virtual website for the organization. Brianhe (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is a national statutary financial regulator rather than what is normally described as a corporation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not sure - it's a statutory regulatory authority, so it's not clear WP:CORP is the appropriate standard. It's the sort of thing that should be notable. The corresponding ar:wp article is about the same. But we do need actual sources, else it'll need redirection somewhere appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added references to a couple of the many independent reliable sources found by searching without the "(SCA)". This is the UAE's equivalent of the Securities and Exchange Commission, so exactly the kind of topic that any half-way decent encyclopedia would be expected to cover. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per article improvements / new sources to confirm notability. This is an acceptable stub at this point. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwa Hindu Sena[edit]

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

Misses WP:ORGIND and WP:ORGDEPTH Marvellous Spider-Man 11:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet any of the Wikipedia's notability criteria. Anup [Talk] 22:03, 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 09:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also, we are not a soap-box. Even if this were kept, it is so poorly written as to require starting from scratch. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Willow Rose[edit]

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

A baby girl named "Willow Rose" is in the news.

This author fails WP:BASIC Marvellous Spider-Man 12:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the baby has a last name. It is "Willow Rose Forrest" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therese Boeje (talk • contribs) 16:00, 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 09:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 44 books is nothing to sneeze at, but are they published by any mainstream publisher? Looks like mostly vanity presses. Willing to wait a bit to see what people find. Montanabw^(talk) 21:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete My sweeps of Danish news (for "Therese Philipsen") as well as a general sweep for "Willow Rose" (using Google's 'news' filter) didn't come up with much. A cursory check of Amazon found that she has indeed published many books; my sense is she has a following of thriller readers, and has tapped into a successful formula for hooking readers on a series. Looking through the Amazon reviews, especially on a highly-read book, there are quite a few reviewers who say the quality of the writing is mediocre and predictable; still, 173 reviews is not too shabby, and there is a likelihood that many of the so-called 'verified purchase' books were giveaways or free copies via a promotion. Here's a blog review which says a Willow Rose book was slow to start but picked up after chapter 9, then became a page-turner, and the reviewer was sent a copy by the author; but that's not an established book critic as far as I can tell. I've been hunting for a serious review from a known critic of one of her books, but what I am finding is Wordpress writeups and such. In Goodreads, she has many reviews, usually hovering around 3.8 out of 5 stars -- suggesting she's a competent but not exceptional writer. She seems to be skilled at promoting her writing through interviews. I know, I know, pageview tallies are not an official way to evaluate a bio article but in my experience it is correlated with notability (like, I'm hesitant to delete somebody with 200+ pageviews a day); and Willow Rose weighs in with 8 pageviews a day (30-day average) as of Sept 21 2016, which is rather mediocre. So, overall, competent and prolific writer, great self-promoter, lack of critical reviews by real critics (what we really need here at Wikipedia) => weak delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, a formulaic hack writer could still be notable, are her books independently published? Does she show any reviews in the legitimate genre press? I'm leaning delete, but I know that even major genre writers don't always get much coverage in the mainstream press unless they achieve celebrity status, which is not the same as notability. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WorldCat shows a mere an therefore unconvincing 24 holdings, not at all convincing, the article then contains nothing else convincing for establishing her own article with substance. Noticeably, the sources themselves consist of trivial and unconvincing sources which is not surprising because that's what could also be said of this article's information. SwisterTwister talk 07:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity paradox[edit]

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

Fails GNG, started as a spam page, and now that the spamlinks have been removed, has no citations at all. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

75% delete It's not a complete invention of that blog, at least; found one article that also uses the term in this regard [32], but no more than that. Certainly doesn't seem to be in widespread use and sources actually defining it seem absent.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A trivial or common-sense concept given a wordy title doesn't make it noteworthy. The phenomenon described here has little to do with complexity, and it is not a paradox. It's just someone's attempt at a witty observation. I wouldn't call it spam, though. Jergling (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Uriyadi. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay kumar (film maker)[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Person not notable and sources are not reliable. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uriyadi, only film that he directed and is known for. Anup [Talk] 10:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:OUTCOMES. Film producers are far too common to be considered notable by themselves, absent widespread media attention. There is no evidence that the subject has gained notability as an actor or director. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FalconK (talk) 06:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus exists that this rivalry is notable. The keep rationales are way more convincing then the delete !votes and show sourcing that indicates the topic meets WP:GNG. Also, thanks to Hammersoft and Cbl62 for their good sleuth work. (non-admin closure) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama–Ole Miss football rivalry[edit]

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

There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a rivalry, and that's probably because it isn't a rivalry. I think we tend to overdo the rivalry thing here on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral The teams play in the same division of the same conference so naturally they'll play each other often, but that does not a rivalry make. Lizard (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lizard the Wizard. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 18:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granted, the article as it stands now is decidedly lacking in references supporting the existence of an actual rivalry. However, there is plenty of evidence pointing to this being a real and important rivalry from around the web. Bleacher report calls it a rivalry [33], as does Fansided [34], Gamedayr [35], the Cox Media Group [36], GridironNow [37], Touchdown Alabama (google cached) [38], Yellowhammer Multimedia [39] and others. There's quite a few references to this rivalry actually. Ok this isn't Auburn-Alabama, but it is an actual rivalry and regarded as such by both teams apparently. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cox Media source rates Ole Miss-Alabama as the #1 rivarly in the SEC. That's persuasive. Is there any argument that this source ("SEC Country") is not a reliable source? Cbl62 (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be that jerk that says "that source is wrong", but that source is wrong. Number 1? Well...Florida-Tennessee, Mississippi-Mississippi State, Alabama-Auburn... Tide rolls, am I way off here? Drmies (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to their Facebook "about us" page, the "SEC Country" people are not affiliated with the SEC. As for Cox Media Group, well...we have an article about them here. While they aren't ESPN in terms of recognition, they do seem independent of the rivalry, and are a secondary source. As for the source being wrong, that's opinion :) {{citation needed}} ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Cox article is that it (explicitly) only deals with the least three years, which makes the case for "rivalry" much harder to make. I mean, three years is nothing compared to the history of the SEC. The Bleacher Report article does use the term explicitly and over a longer period of time, but it's the only one in there that I have some faith in. Gamedayr is just a fan page, and what Yellowhammernews (a blog, and not a bad one, but still just a blog) reports is what TicketCity, a ticket broker, had to say. So, not a reliable source, reporting on something published by not a reliable source. Southbound is part of Fansided, and that is simply not a reliable source--"a thriving collection of over 300 communities dedicated to bringing together fans to share their common passions". Sorry Hammersoft, but if you want to mess with the SEC you'll have to bring your A game. RTR, Drmies (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's the SEC doesn't mean there's a different set of notability guidelines that apply. I'm sorry. WP:GNG applies, whether it's the SEC or Division III ball. If there's a rivalry as reported in multiple, reliable, independent secondary sources, then there's a rivalry. I've provided several secondary sources. You want more? Here's more.

Topbet.eu calls Alabama's rivalry with Ole Miss #5 biggest rival and says "the Ole Miss rivalry dates all the way back to 1894" [40]
Washington post says "In the long history of this rivalry..." [41]
International Business Times, while calling it a "one-sided rivalry" does call it a rivalry [42]
The Alex City Outlook, while a small market newspaper, also counts as a reliable, secondary source. Here's a 2007 article from them titled "Bama, Ole Miss renew SEC rivalry" [43]. It's worth noting the year of publication, and that should anyone have an idea this is a rivalry only because of the last couple of games, that's wrong.
Al.com, while likely Alabama biased, is an independent news source. They note in this article; "...in the history of the rivalry."

All of the above count as independent, reliable, secondary sources. All of the above refer to this as a rivalry. I say again, this rivalry isn't on the same level as Auburn-Alabama, but it is a rivalry with over 120 years of history. You said "There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a rivalry". I know with the information you had at the time, that seemed the case. However, I've proven this to be clearly false. This is a clear WP:GNG pass. I encourage you to amend your vote given the above, new information. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to have a look--as long as you're not claiming that Gamedayr and TicketCity and the others I discussed are reliable, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine if you want to ignore Gamedayr. I count it as reliable as it has an editorial team reviews all posts prior to publishing, including assuring "for originality, sourcing, statistics and grammar" and that "sources must come in the form of a reputable publisher...." I.e., editorial oversight. As for Yellowhammer, I don't see that it is a blog. They are a news outlet, with staff. In fact, you can apply to be an intern right now. I.e., editorial oversight. Are they biased? I don't know. Independent? Yes. That's the salient point. Whether or not they are neutral or not is immaterial, per WP:BIASED. I don't really care if you ignore all of the sources provided by myself and Cbl62. You (rightfully, at the time) made a claim there was no evidence of there being a rivalry. That's subsequently been proven false, as multiple newspapers have been cited on this AfD dating back decades referring to this as a rivalry. I would hope you would see the weight of evidence and do the right thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here is a full-page article (part of it linked) on the classic games in the Ole Miss-Alabama series. Also, here is a 1971 article dealing with Alabama-Ole Miss rivalry. I also found this article from 1966 dealing with it as a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds Cbl62! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard:, @Corkythehornetfan:, @Drmies:; given that we've come up with so many articles from independent, reliable (as in, there's an editorial staff), secondary sources, and that some of those sources date back more than 50 years, would you please reconsider your opposition to keeping this article? This is a clear pass of WP:GNG now. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the decision will be made based on the strength of arguments and not by a headcount of votes, I don't really see a reason to. My argument wasn't very strong and I admit ignorance. I think the issue here is that the media—not Wikipedia—has a more liberal view of what constitutes a "rivalry" than it did in the past. Guess we'll just have to suck it up. Lizard (talk) 14:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lizard the Wizard: One, more than 50 years ago it was referred to as a rivalry. This rivalry isn't a new-media phenomena. See the links provided by Cbl62. Two, while well-meaning, we have quite a number of non-admin AfD patrollers who do go by strict vote counts, and do one of two things; (1) re-list the debate, even though there's clear evidence one way or the other, if there's not some magical number of majority achieved, or (2) close as "no consensus", which rarely does anyone any favors. You are quite correct it is not a head count, but that's not how AfD typically works anymore. At least striking "delete" in your initial post would help to avoid this. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample news media sources describing it as a rivalry dating back 50 years. Some people may not like the broad definition of "rivalry" but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rivalry articles are a bit tricky and I'm not much of a fan of them myself. This one has a deep enough history that it seems to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 19:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sausalito News[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a community newspaper in a small suburb of a larger city. WP:NMEDIA does not grant an automatic presumption of notability to all newspapers that exist -- a newspaper still has to be the subject of reliable source coverage to qualify for a Wikipedia article, and does not get a "no sourcing required" freebie just because its own self-published website or an online archive of its issues nominally verifies that it existed. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually find some reliable sourcing about it, but nothing in the article right now is enough. Bearcat (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Small suburb of a larger city? I don't think so. And the Golden Gate Bridge wasn't built until 1937. Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom. No independent coverage cited nor found. MB 04:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and redirect~~ to California Digital Newspaper Collection A Wikipedia search for "Sausalito News" shows that this reference is cited often. The article is unsourced, citations don't appear by themselves, and WP:V is a core content policy. WP:IAR, since WP:DEL7 cannot be used as stated to protect the encyclopedia from unsourced articles. Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I added citations and content to the article, and I believe it's an acceptable stub on a historic paper at this point. Also ping Unscintillating and Bearcat to see what they think. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC) Also MB. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Sufficiently sourced. pretty IittIe Iiar 05:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources show that it exists, but little more. FalconK (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newspapers.com does seem to have coverage. Let me see if I can clip some. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While this article is starved for better detail, it is verifiable that the paper existed in 1887, and an unknown part of it has been archived at the [[California Digital Newspaper Collection. Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Gerlak[edit]

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

Being a rower for a university is not notable enough for inclusion. ~~Also has no references.~~ 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 18:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Being President of Oxford University Boat Club and representing the university in the Oxford & Cambridge Boat Race as well as representing his country at under-23 world level just about scrapes him over the line. Nthep (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in a multitude of national level news papers. Leads/manages team of a sport which gets nationwide/partly worldwide attention (The Boat Race seems to be a pretty huge event). Coverage about the event at telegraph, telegraph, mirror, dailymail, cambridge news, Guardian, oxfordmail and there are more. As manager/leader/president (and also rower) he is featured in all those articles. He also won the bronze medal in an international and officially sanctioned rowing event. I therefore think he makes it over the notability line per WP:GNG as well as WP:NSPORTS. Dead Mary (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I almost closed this as Delete, I admit. This has to be right on the edges of notability, but a number of sources - whether they be high quality is another question - have been raised that argue against BIO1E. The question of promotionalism can be fixed by editing; AfD is not cleanup. If someone wants to take this one to DRV, be my guest, you don't need to inform me first (though drop me note that you've done it). Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Riks[edit]

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

Advertising Rathfelder (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pending more references. The long list of notable people that he impersonates does not make him notable. None of his YouTube videos have gone "viral", as far as I know. But I'd be surprised if there isn't more general support for his notability from mainstream sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP says we need the RSes right there - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless RSes show up in convincing numbers. Google and GNews has one local paper story and lots of passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I created the page, so it's not advertising. That was the sole criterion for deletion, however as someone mentioned sources, here's just a few. It's significant that Rolling Stone and Billboard have both thought his impression of David Bowie is the real thing, and Billboard STILL has his version of My Way on their site as though it's the real Bowie.

Wirral Globe Liverpool Echo Liverpool Echo Chester Chronicle Billboard

DavidFarmbrough (talk) 02:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- We don't risk having a biography of a living person for people famous for only a single event, even if that can be shown to constitute being "famous" (first I'd heard of him). Per WP:BIO1E, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." Is an article on the event likely? No - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT a promotional platform. The content includes:

Riks' expertise, inventiveness and creativity, has helped build a huge internet following, attracting more than 60 million hits and 70,000 subscribers, releasing his material on social media websites including YouTube and Facebook.
Stevie's Fan base is worldwide - burgeoning in the UK And US - and includes a large number of celebrities including: Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr
Etc. etc.

This is strictly advertorial, with no indications of notability or significance. The article also attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from better known entities. So delete with a good doze of WP:TNT. 19:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)K.e.coffman (talk)

Are you are offering to administer the WP:TNT yourself? Your arguments suggest article trimming, not article deletion, is required. In fact, I've just spent two minutes trimming and tidying some of it to save you the trouble. The essential question here must be notability, supported by WP:RS? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the deletion arguments above, the key problem is it doesn't have those either - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did read them. And the problem is that he doesn't enough of have them yet? Or are you saying that all of the sources added since the RfD was first opened count for nothing? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They count for a single event. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, the event would warrant the article, and it clearly doesn't. (And this is also set out above. At this point it appears you're arguing without having read the above objections.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This supports the same "single event" as this? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means as nothing here is actually coming close to independent notability, substance and the convincing improvements this would seriously need, there's nothing here but advertising what there is to know about his career, with quite noticeable focus of it; the sources then are not at all convincing since they are all trivial and unconvincing. As such is common, this actually then contains the blatant named mentions of other people, presumably to flash "substance" that is actually non-existent. The Keep votes above are simply not substantiating themselves, either now or then, and thus are presumed to not be challenging the listed concerns now. SwisterTwister talk 04:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources listed by DavidFarmbrough (talk · contribs) provide significant coverage of the subject. They discuss his biographical background and demonstrate that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are inapplicable. For example, this source notes:
Stevie, 48, who appeared on ITV’s New Faces in 1988, told The Chronicle: “OK, well, Billboard, Rolling Stone Magazine, The NME and many more are all using my video thinking it’s Mr Bowie. Now whether it's being used in the new Bowie BBC documentary, I’m not too sure?
He was featured on BBC's Inside Out in 2008 here. The WP:BLP1E event referred to above occurred in 2016, eight years after the BBC article was published. Martinevans123 (talk · contribs) has done significant good work in cleaning up the article, demonstrating that WP:TNT is not necessary.
Cunard (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re "significant good work in cleaning up the article" -- I honestly don't see that the article has improved much. With content such as:

In 2009 Riks became the UK's #1 Most watched and Subscribed Comedian on YouTube.^{[citation needed]} Famous for impersonating rock and pop legends such as The Beatles, David Bowie, The Bee Gees and Freddie Mercury are among his fan's favorites. Riks recently produced a viral series of "Misheard Lyric" videos on YouTube that continue to grow in views. Riks's videos reach over 7.5 million people on Facebook monthly.

References

^ Private correspondence: 24-09-2016 e-mail
^ Guo, K.J., Yolles, M., Fink, G., Iles, P., 2016, The Changing Organisation: Agency Theory in a Cross-cultural Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming.

...the article is not in compliance with WP:NOT; it exists solely to promote the subject. The language of "huge following"; "most watched"; "famous for" it typical WP:PEACOCK in such promotional articles, while the page attempts to WP:INHERIT notability from well known figures that the subject impersonated. (This is very typical of articles of marginal notability as they need to "prop up" their topics). This sentence does not even make sense: "Famous for impersonating rock and pop legends such as The Beatles, David Bowie, The Bee Gees and Freddie Mercury are among his fan's favorites"; hence my earlier suggestion for TNT.

The subject demonstrates no notability or significance and accepting such advertorial content is not in the best interest of the project. Furthermore, volunteer editors' time would be wasted in maintaining neutrality of this article. Wikipedia aims to an academic standard, and this pages falls too far short of it to add value to the encyclopedia at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article can still be cleaned up more. But Martinevans123's good cleanup work on the article has shown it can be salvaged through normal editing. Cunard (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed any "good cleanup work on the article", just a few minutes basic tidying up and adding sources. There's no reason why all the other "promotional language" can also be dumped out. This article should stay or go based on whether or not Riks is notable and there are sources to show that. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kampyle (software), I don't find it possible to improve WP:PROMO articles through copyediting alone. There will be nothing left if such promotionally sourced content is removed: link to comment. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No amount of improving is going to fix and better something that is PR and that alone, the fact the user who started this only focused with this, and focused with it quite passionately and closely, suggests that's exactly what the thoughts of this article were. Comparing this and this shows there's been no actual convincing changes of alleviating the PR concerns at all, since not only have the sourcing concerns not changed, the information has not either. There's certainly enough outweighing here to suggest this is by far best deleted because of all these concerns, and we once again have to stop kidding ourselves about compromising at all about PR lest we become a PR webhost, which is what PR agents plan and want. The Keep vote are not actually acknowledging this or then substantiating themselves because of the stated concerns. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "compromising about PR", I'm looking for sources to establish notability. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but the assertion that the article exists solely to promote the subject is incorrect. I created the article and have no interest in promoting the subject whatsoever. I am interested in making Wikipedia better. I have no connection with the subject and am not a 'fan'. I won't deny that I enjoy some of the subject's content but I am by no means invested in the career of the person concerned. I am however invested in making Wikipedia better, and the subject is one which is popular/notable enough for inclusion. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I personally think Riks is quite talented, but have no connection or interest in promotion whatsoever. "Notability" is rather nebulous concept, isn't it, and I might admit that Riks was "borderline". But then I come across some tiny stub article on some obscure academic or historical figure, who is mentioned just in a couple of specialist academic journals or history books, and compare that individual with Riks, whose videos have received literally millions of views on YouTube. And I think who really is the most "notable" of these? OK, so Riks has not been interviewed by say The Daily Telegraph, but he has had reasonable exposure on local press and television over a number of years. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like some of the other commenters, I'm not impressed by the claim that we have acceptable sourcing here for a standalone article. This "15 minutes of fame" stuff here - or in policy terms, BIO1E. I don't see that we have material to support a biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xymmax (talk • contribs)

Stevie Riks appeared on ITV’s New Faces in 1988 and was featured on BBC's Inside Out in 2008 here. The event referred to as being WP:BIO1E occurred in 2016, eight years after the BBC article was published. With multiple events, WP:BIO1E cannot be applicable. Cunard (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Design for Inspection[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NOTGUIDE JMHamo (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist. The concept is sound, once you think of it, complementing design for manufacturability. For example, the Google search yields academic article "Design for inspection of concrete bridges", for just one. The article itself does not have to be merely a how-to guide; it can/should give history of the concept and survey where it is most applicable, etc....a matter of editing not cause for deletion. --do ncr am 10:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amendments to the page have been made and I hope these are acceptable. The Design for Inspection is a consideration at the design stage that is commonly overlooked and represents significant cost implications for industry and one that is important to highlight. Please let me know if further amendments are required. Regards Carl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl Hitchens (talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is not traditionally part of DFx, and the intro needs rewriting, but DFI has papers written about it and makes sense from an engineering perspective. Jergling (talk) 22:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amendments have been made to the introduction 143.167.219.205 (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Design For Inspection is a concept within manufacturing engineering that should be considered concurrently with design for manufacture or design for x, this allows a suitable measurement plan to be created to ensure the product conformity but also highlights features and tolerances that will be difficult or impossible to measure. Within engineering if there is something you can't measure to the specification then you can't manufacture it as there is no way to confirm conformance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel McMahon 86 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Turek[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both considering applicable notability and then the fact there's no inherited notability from any listed teams. There's essentially nothing else from the unsurprising which is to list what teams he plays for, that's simply it. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nethone[edit]

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

Nonnotable business. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no substantive sources. Some press-release-level coverage in fintech blogs (e.g. "Bankless Times" in the article) but nothing substantive, RS or both - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCOMPANY. Spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having seen the word 'leveraging' in the contested deletion message, I'm very inclined to think this is spam... Peridon (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO and lack of RS; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 10:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity doctor[edit]

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

The genesis of this article is a sort of op-ed from the LA Times, 2010, reference #2. Call the title a catchphrase or concept. The author then gathers a group of articles around this concept, to bolster it. While the articles are mostly reliable sources, what holds everything together is the author tying them to the phrase/concept fr/ the LA Times. The is classic original research and soapboxing. As such it needs to be deleted. Tapered (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I need to amend my original statement. The worst thing about this article is the relationship between title and content. The content is overwhelmingly negative. By grouping all the negative information under the title celebrity doctor, it implies that all doctors who are celebrities are charlatans. Any well-known physician, whether charlatan or saint, could be linked to and associated with this page. If the author is willing to change the title to something less susceptible, I'd be happy to let the matter drop. Otherwise, I believe I've made the AfD nomination stronger. Tapered (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate and irrelevant to an AFD discussion. If you feel that a page should be renamed, follow the procedure at WP:RM#CM and obtain a consensus at the talkpage to rename it; don't try to wheedle an admin into doing it unilaterally.

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

This is addressed to any Administrator who might close this discussion. User:Jytdog created the article on 14 Sept. On 15 Sept, without showing any references to demonstrate the fact (and no mention of Dr. Sears in the touchstone "Celebrity doctor" article), he changed the primary description of Dr. Robert Sears in the his biography lead,from pediatrician to...Celebrity doctor! When his edit was politely reverted for lack of references, he re-reverted, claiming that it was already referenced (without citing the ref), and that it wasn't necessary in the lead section, anyway. (References? We ain't got no references. We don't need no references. I don't have to show you any stinking references.) This shows how the title of the article can be used for all sorts of POV editing, and assorted 'label and categorize' intellectual dishonesty. If you close the article with any sort of keep, and I don't see how you can avoid it, please use your position as an Admin boldly, and change the title to stop more bad editing—like Jytdog's—before it can start. I hope this has given you enough 'cover' to do it. My title suggestions are "Health care professionals in broadcasting," or "Doctors and psychologists in broadcasting." Thank you for your time and attention. Tapered (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tapered, When I added back "celebrity doctor" in this dif - the one you cite I added the Esquivel ref that directly supports the term, and this addressed the problem identified in the edit note, "unsourced", with which the term had been removed. Look again and then please redact your statement, which misrepresents what happened. This is all irrelevant to the AfD of course. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unbecoming and irrelevant personal attack - quite apart from it being completely factually incorrect, per Jytdog's diffs - and does nothing for your case; I urge you to strike it - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong about the correction, and I apologize. I'm striking it. However, the first insertion was totally unreferenced, and the Esquivel reference in no way cites Sears as a "celebrity doctor." I stand by everything else. The edit was bad, and I've made the point forcefully and unequivocally. The article will never be deleted, and I've showing any Admin looking it over an example of how easily the title can be misused/abused. And an afterthought: if it's a good article, the names I've proposed—or similar names—can't possibly hurt it. Can they? Tapered (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Esquivel source doesn't use the exact phrase "celebrity doctor" but it describes him twice as a "celebrity" and very much because of his public advocacy as a doctor. Whether the "celebrity doctor" label is suitable for Sears is debatable in good faith but your claim that the label is not supported by the ref is again just inaccurate. See Law of holes. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two uses of the word "celebrity" in an article is fine for the standards of popular media to label him a celebrity doctor. To use the label to link to an article @ Wikipedia—insufficient IMO, and hopefully for most editors outside the bounds of the medical science grouping. "Such and such an author describes someone as a celebrity doctor"—fine—but what you did to the Sears article, and what others can do in the future = POV editing. Tapered (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you do not understand how inappropriate this subthread is for an AfD. I will not respond further. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep (I created of the article) I think Tapered didn't read very carefully and seems to have become all alarmed for little reason. The phrase is used many times in strong sources. To name a few - the Cult of celebrity doctors LA Times piece from 2010 Tapered mentions, PMC 3912308, the Think Progress piece, this very recent NPR piece with the hook of Trump's recent visit to Dr Oz, etc. ("NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with W. Douglas Evans, director of the Public Health Communication and Marketing Program at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, about the role that celebrity doctors play, and why Dr. Oz has such a loyal following despite the controversy surrounding him.") We are having some interesting discussions about defining the boundaries of this thing, but it is a thing. The nomination is without merit in my view, but we'll see what the community has to say. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Concept is widely discussed (often using the exact term "Celebrity Doctor") in a variety of good RS, so this is an obviously notable topic for the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Tough one. The concept does not seem to be defined anywhere, but it is not a wiki-only neologism, it is used in some news pieces, as well as a (very) few academic works (see hits on GScholar). I concur with the creator that it is "a thing". Things to consider - is the concept notable? And can we use Wikipedia to define it? Or is it WP:OR as User:Tapered suggested? Given the amount of coverage of this in non-academic but still somewhat reliable media, I think it is notable, so the final question to answer is whether this article is OR or not, and of that I am not sure. In the end, I am going with weak keep due to WP:IAR - it is a notable concept, and the definition is in line with WP:COMMONSENSE. In other words, I am saying that IMHO OR should not prevent us from starting articles on concepts that have not been clearly defined anywhere else, as long as such concepts are notable, but I am certainly open to further discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While most of the refs are to issues with specific (or mention) celebrity doctors, rather than about 'celebrity doctors' as a concept, there are at least 2 that are specifically about the group rather than a particular example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above - David Gerard (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article covers several topics, while articles should cover one topic per "Disambiguation". Celebrity doctors can be public intellectuals, famous because of their prominence in their fields, or doctors with talk shows or doctors who administer to celebrities. I do not think it is helpful to say that doctors on TV often provide poor advice, when Dr. Sanjay Gupta seems to be in a differnt category from the talk show hosts. (The main criticism he has attracted relates to his views on health care provision, rather than medical science.) Furthermore, the topic lacks notability. No reliable sources cover it, only op-eds which are only reliable for the opinions of their writers. Also, this appears to be a revenge article created by Jytdog. He is upset that Dr. Phil and other media doctors have weighed into the dispute about Hillary Clinton's health, while representing that her main challenger, Donald Trump, is in perfect health. Raise that issue in the respective articles, don't create an article to discredit everyone who happens to be a doctor and appears on TV. TFD (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's ugly, and a lie. fwiw I actually started thinking about this category in the course of my work on fad diets, many of which are put out there by "doctors plying their trade in the media" Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of your work on fad diet you have never bothered to mention why they lead to rapid weight loss, do not work long term and can lead to health disorders. Instead of the science, the article focuses on naming and shaming: "Celebrity endorsements are frequently associated with fad diets, and the individuals who develop and promote these programs often profit handsomely." TFD (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The generalization is not sustainable across my work on fad diets, and you have not struck your lie. Whatever, more diffs for future potential action if this continues. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unhelpful to accuse other people of lying. Has it never occurred to you that other people may just have differences of opinion or even mistaken? Anyway, I was looking at the "Fad diet" article you provided a link for. I note that you have been editing the article for over 18 months but only created "Celebrity doctors" the day after Dr. Phil announced Trump would be on his show. TFD (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made a statement of fact in this dif and followed it up with another in this dif. (collecting diffs now) Neither framed as opinions and importantly, neither relevant to a policy-driven deletion discussion. I am not responding further. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some discussion of the exact parameters for inclusion, but ultimately this is clearly a notable topic with ample support in reliable independnet sources. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guy and Alexbrn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is possibly the most strange and worrying development I've noticed on Wiki. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, but one individual's essay, filled with original research, questionable judgments and plain opinion. It has a sort of Orwellian quality, too, by which anonymous information controllers seek to empower themselves to define meanings, create entities and arbitrate on reputation. Meanwhile, all the weasel words 'may be' and so forth are used to pursue agenda, for instance suggesting that there is some particular proclivity toward COIs among such people. This article brings nothing together from the store of human knowledge, but essentially seeks to define and create an entity. On the criteria used, josef mengele was a celebrity doctor, and ought to be included if this page stays up. Dallas66 (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep advocates have a very good case. However I'm going to go with WP's policy for "neutral point of view." I don't think we would have an article on "Crooked politician" or "Sports cheater" or whatever. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that a positive news report on a well-known doctor would not call him or her a celebrity.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do we have an article on TV medical talk shows? Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate articles on The Dr. Oz Show (as well as one on Mehmet Oz), The Doctors (talk show) (as well as Travis Lane Stork, Andrew P. Ordon, Jennifer Berman, and Jennifer Ashton); Dr. Drew On Call and Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew etc as well as Drew Pinsky, Dr. Phil (TV series) (and Phil McGraw) ... bunch of individual articles. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll admit that I'm a little worried about some of the issues raised here, but, in the end, the concept is notable. There does seem to be a connotation to the term that makes it vaguely critical if not pejorative, but, from reading the sources, this is not Wikipedia's fault. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doing a search here, I find many references to the concept, including the Los Angeles Times, Medical jobs, and dozens of others. It is not a complete neologism. That said, the tone of the article is problematic, and if the article creator applied his own standards of sourcing and reliability to this work, it would probably be chopped to a stub. Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Medical talk show might be an option. All of the criticisms could still be there, but along with neutral history of the phenomenon.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support that, but it's more of a decision for the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that leaves out a lot of stuff. Celebrity doctors don't only do their thing on TV. The core definition is a medical professional who plies their trade in the media (TV, websites/social media, radio, books, etc). Ruth Westheimer was a celebrity doctor for example, and she did a lot of her work on radio and in books. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk show includes radio as well as TV.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article is informative (using WP RS), and notable...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent discussion so far...except for "lie." However, out of all the comments and recommendations, only 2 of the 3 'delete' recommendations have directly addressed the reasons given for deletion: contravention of the guidelines against original research, and soapboxing. One of the 'deletes' correctly added that the title is implied POV advocacy, and another has added a description of the article as an essay, which dovetails with OR and soapboxing. All the positive qualities of the article cited by the 'keepers' can be, and sometimes are, characteristics of OR/POV articles. Please refute the original assertions, if you can, with reasoned statements. Tapered (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a confusion here for some editors. Nobody could dispute that there are sources describing individuals as celebrity doctors. The issue here is the creation of an encyclopedia entry. What would you think, eg, for an entry on Fat Russians', with an anonymously created definition of fat Russians, with say a few named individuals said to be fat Russians? You don't need to be told by an encyclopedia - especially one with too many pages to work on and monitor already - what a fat Russian is. Nor does anyone who can speak English to moderate standards need to be told, much less given an anonymous point of view, on what a celebrity doctor is. It is a doctor who is also a celebrity. More than that is POV conjecture and opinion. Dallas66 (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison of "fat Russians" ignores the point, backed by the sources, that "celebrity doctor" is actually a term in itself, as strongly evidenced by the RSes already in the article, which is why I opined "keep" - this isn't just a local neologism or descriptive adjective-noun combination, it's a term that's clearly in currency, in serious discussion of the concept and the problems with it, i.e. it's encyclopedic - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dallas66 (and others): your erudition is wonderful, but for Pete's sakes,if you don't tie it to categories from What Wikipedia is Not, or Made Up Stuff, or especially from the rationale at the top of the page, you don't give the Admins anything to hang their hats on. This ain't primarily an intellectual debate, it's a discussion/debate for/against deletion. Please write accordingly. Tapered (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is another example of an AfD on a topic that is notable but very poorly written. I've been saying for quite some time that it is a mistake to conflate quality with notability—they are independent of one another. (That's in WP:N or its guidelines somewhere, I'm not going to go dig it up, someone else can locate the cite). Clearly, the article needs massive cleanup and has significant POV issues. But the concept passes GNG. It might have to have content nuked to a stub and the whole thing rewritten, but David Gerard is correct; the concept is a real one, not a made-up phrase unique to wikipedia, and as such is notable. Passes GNG, more than adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 17:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - right now I'm leaning towards delete per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The article in it's present state doesn't offer a reasonable or neutral perspective, there's no history given on the early pioneers like Benjamin Spock, Ruth Westheimer, Joyce Brothers. The lead sentence which gives a definition cherry-picked from a reliable source completely leaves out the genre of radio talk shows (it could be reasonably argued that this genre was the catalyst) and their whole roster of media personalities like Laura Schlessinger, Judy Kuriansky, Dr. Bob Martin, Dr. Michelle Cohen, Pinsky actually got his start in radio. It doesn't offer an international perspective, Australian celebrity doctor, Tokyo court gives celebrity doctor..., Celebrity doctor’s clinic closed..., Celebrity doctor Joel Mendez, Pixie McKenna. I do think it is a notable topic, ~~but it is currently written with a biased point of view to seemingly "discredit everyone who happens to be a doctor and appears on (American) TV".~~-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've added some content dealing with the past and transitioning to the current state of things, and mentioning radio. Thanks too for the links to the phenomenon in other countries... added that too. Didn't use the ref about Manuel “Manny” Calayan and Rosario “Pie” Cabrera-Calayan as that does not appear to be an RS. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update to Keep in light of recent improvements.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ya it is pop culture but lots of coverage from many different sources.[44] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Keep arguments above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was surprised to find this was a brand new draft a week or so ago; I've seen the term used so many damn times in the media that I just assumed WP already had an article on it. None of the delete arguments I've seen here make any sense at all. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite clearly notable. Meets WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Germane, notable subject with more than sufficient referencing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Meister[edit]

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

Non notable Model. Promotional piece for individual lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Actor is as an extra( eg one of 15 credited as "Person in Brighton Pub"). Claimed music charting is on bad charts. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, I'm having trouble finding coverage even in unreliable sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See discussion at ANI. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Niter[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A recent winner of championship, a model, a bodybuilder who is not in the news. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The keep votes from previous AFD was from IPs and a not-very-active editor. --Marvellous Spider-Man 03:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An American professional bodubuilder is not in the news. The answer to the IP's query (who surprisingly knows about WP:BEFORE) is this: He is nowhere mentioned in any reliablenewspaper, website, magazine, bodybuilding magazine, even for once. The only result is about a Staff Serageant and even that mention is not detailed. Keep votes by IP editors, article creators and accounts with very less edits is not proper reason to close this discussion. Thanks Marvellous Spider-Man 04:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator for AFD states, "The keep votes from previous AFD was from IPs and a not-very-active editor." According to Wikipedia guidelines, Wikipedia welcomes anyone to make contributions to articles, regardless of IPs or level of activity. Specifically, it reads, "You do not even have to log in to edit articles on Wikipedia. Just about anyone can edit almost any article at any given time, even without logging in." see WP:CTW Furthermore, recommend the nominator review WP:DEL-REASON. In its current standing, the deletion reason does not coincide entirely with Wikipedia's deletion reason. I would encourage the nominator to focus on the article rather than contributor standing to eliminate any biased approach. Additionally, before listing an article for deletion, consider whether a more efficient alternative is appropriate. Please review WP:BEFORE Thank you for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.4.3 (talk) 06:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Marvellous Spider-Man Thanks for inquiring about (A recent winner of championship, a model, a bodybuilder who is not in the news.) Their is a possibility that you haven't read this article from last month about this bodybuilder. http://www.incirlik.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/907297/incirlik-to-hold-inaugural-fitness-competition The article clearly demonstrates that this public figure is noted in the article as a "professional natural bodybuilder, athlete and competitor." The article also demonstrates that the bodybuilder is actively involved in the community, building international foreign relations and being summoned to put on the first-ever fitness competition at a location in Turkey. I would have to disagree that the bodybuilder isn't in the news. The bodybuilder appears very active in the media, while supported by credible sources. However, please help us strengthen the article with more recommendations. Recommend moving article to WP:AFI Thank you for your inquiry. Rniterjr (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator's definition of a reliable source seems contrary to what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source. Recommend nominator review WP:SOURCE under "What counts as a reliable source." Wikipedia doesn't define a Google search under "NEWS" tab as a sole reliable source. The nominator was swift to demonstrate that a Google search for "Robert Niter" did not list one reliable source regarding the bodybuilder. However, the Wikipedia article for Robert Niter clearly states that the bodybuilder is known as "Rob Niter." Upon performing a Google search for "Rob Niter" (under the condition of the nominator), and clicking the "NEWS" tab; it is revealed that the bodybuilder is featured in an "independent" and secondary article in a well-known and reliably sourced newspaper: Periodico Zocalo This is contrary to the nominator's statement that "He is nowhere mentioned in any reliable newspaper." I would highly encourage the nominator to review the Wikipedia article and its entirety prior to nominating for WP:AFD. Recommend speedy keep per GeoffreyT2000

Request nominator review WP:STFW Rniterjr (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia recommends Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability

"The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rniterjr (talk 16:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Rniterjr (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google News Search for "Rob Niter" reveals these articles. Google High Beam Search for "Robert Niter" reveals his championship awards and heroic act in saving a life here The bodybuilder is clearly in the news.Rniterjr (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests any convincing of applicable notability, the article itself goes to specifics about things he would say about himself and his career; the fact how it's actually formatted in this exact situation shows the concerns; there's nothing to suggest improvements would be meaningful. Regardless of what the Keep votes consider about this or the AfD is not something to consider if the article itself is still of concern and if it's not actually improvable. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In evaluating the comments, I have responded to each wikipedian's claim with strong evidence in supporting this bodybuilder's article. I've used good faith to remove parts of the article that others have written that gave the appearance of "promoting" the bodybuilder and inaccurate data. What I haven't received is the "why" factor. Why does this bodybuilder not meet WP:GNG. In my review, I hear "concern" but that doesn't tell me that this bodybuilder isn't notable. I hear that one is not "convinced" but nothing to follow as to why. Example, one member wrote that their was no news sources in which it was later provided. I hear things regarding "specifics." The specifics of any article in Wikipedia should be VERY SPECIFIC and include sources as to challenge anyone in question. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. I still stand by this bodybuilder as being notable based on WP:GNG He meets the bar. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Rniterjr (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's pretty simple. The subject meets the requirements for notability. CuriousMum (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the previous Afd nominator. It's pretty simple. The subject doesn't meet the requirements for notability. Non-notable competition, no significant press, especially in any bodybuilder magazine. Note: Rniterjr is the article's creator. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable body builder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep previous Afd nominator claims "non-notable competition" yet Musclemania has it's own Wikipedia article. According to Musclemania's Official Website, competitions are held globally, to include multiple locations in America, Asia, Canada, Mexico, Australia, Paris, Hidalgo, India and Europe. I'd agree with Wikipedia that Musclemania is a notable competition. Although thousands compete, the bodybuilder's image and name was chosen to grace the front cover of the Texas Tour of Musclemania's Official Website. I could only assume that his competition standing was a determining factor. This bodybuilder, author, and writer is also verified as a public figure, media company or brand. After careful consideration, I'd still have to say the bodybuilder easily passes WP:GNG. Rniterjr (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The athlete has media exposure from reliable sources. He has won a competition multiple times. The competition is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page. He is sponsored by a company notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page. The athlete meets notability standards on many levels. WikiGuy1980 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG, article subject has received extensive media coverage with reliable sources. Multiple competitions winner. BabbaQ (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. there are enough citations to reliable sources including news sources. pretty IittIe Iiar 10:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio[edit]

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

Notability of this specific congregation is not established. Sources and article text mostly fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage and/or the congregation is simply mentioned in passing but is not the subject of the reference. The few national sources are about individuals, not the congregation itself. JonRidinger (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are in-depth sources about the church itself (one of the oldest in the US) and here as well as its popular program which merited coverage in the New York Times and the Record-Courier (which serves three Ohio counties). Not only that, it's minister made national news by traveling to Arizona to protest against immigration policy and then was arrested and spent time in jail. Overall, meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"From WP:N: "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." That means sources need to focus on the congregation itself, not random aspects of the congregation. The article on the minister's time in jail simply mentions that she's from the UU Congregation in Kent. If anything it could be used to claim notability for the minister, but would likely fail for the lack of significant coverage. Anything from the Record-Courier, WKSU, or KentWired is a local news source (all three are based in Kent, Ohio), so they fall under WP:ROUTINE, and one mention in the New York Times doesn't meet the notability requirement of significant coverage, on top of the article, again, not focusing on the congregation, but on the program they were doing and it being part of a larger national trend of Harry Potter-themed programming. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article...". And this subject easily satisfies these criteria. And no, you can't separate out the minister from the congregation -- both are intertwined -- the minister's decision to protest in Arizona was supported by the congregation (and several other members traveled with her to protest -- travel expenses were partially subsidized by the congregation). Fairness in immigration is a deeply-held Unitarian cause, and when ministers get arrested, it is properly national news. And no, you can't separate out a church from its programs such as its successful educational program for children and young people -- it's all part of the church. Further, there are additional print sources being located which will add to the notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources from national media don't include any details about the congregation at all other than mentioning her has the minister. Further, after she was released, it was no longer covered, so if anything a slight case could be made for the notability of the minister, but not the congregation. Also, successful does not necessarily equate to notable. I can name quite a few successful or "popular" programs run by churches in Kent, Ohio, but I would never consider the congregations notable simply because of that. Bear in mind too that references from the general UU page, while national, can also be considered WP:PRIMARY sources since the main UU page has a direct connection to the local congregation. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This reads like a very typical local church, though of a less common denomination. If this article provided a serious history of the church, I have thought twice, but it jumps from the names of the founding families, over 130 years (on which nothing at all) to 2000. I am slightly hazy on the chronology of American settlement, but I thought Ohio was settled considerably before 1866, so that I would have expected there to be some rather older churches in Ohio, and some still in use since before the Revolution on the east coast. Tomwsulcer was the article creator. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Based on just the original article, I absolutely agree with all of the above, but as a UU that just worked on a wikipedia page for a more recent, but somewhat more distinguished UU church, there are a number of important points about this church: the history includes activity in the women's suffrage movement in the 1890's to 1914 and in the peace movement in the 60s-70s, especially after the Kent State shootings. Also, it had a very early woman minister -- not the first, that was Olympia Brown, also a Universalist, but not long after her, and she had to struggle to be allowed in theology school. Wikipedia should also be careful about deletions involving historically less documented subjects -- the Universalist side of the UU church is one whose history has been neglected because Universalists tended to be working class, while Unitarians were upper class. However, as evidenced by the history page on their Web site and the Kent library collection, there have been recent efforts to remedy this. I have added history that I have been able to find easily, and that should be enough to warrant inclusion. Perhaps Mr. Sulcer will make a little more effort to find additional material on the church. Finally (I didn't document this on the page), it's a very long-standing church, the second oldest church building in Kent and the oldest still in use as a church. It's clearly one of the oldest churches in Kent that is still around. I didn't include that in the article, because I have to move on now.Ngriffeth (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, the UU church's significance locally is their building, not their congregation. That in itself isn't notable, though, unless the church would be listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which is unlikely given not only the changes made to the building, but the planned renovation. The church is mentioned at Kent, Ohio#Religion and has been for several years. Photos and sketches of the church are also here. Quite a few religious congregations in Kent have ties to the history of the city or notable causes (the United Church of Christ was originally the Congregational Church where John Brown attended, for instance, and was a noted abolitionist congregation). While interesting, that is more appropriate for the History of Kent, Ohio article than a stand-alone article on the congregation. Local significance, especially in smaller towns like Kent, doesn't equal notability and the UU has no more local significance than any other religious body in Kent. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I actually said was that the notability relates to their work in the women's suffrage movement in the 1890s forward and in the peace movement in the 1970s. My mention of the church building was an afterthought.Ngriffeth (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nonsense. A church = ministers + congregation + building, and this one is notable in all three respects.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/ *Keep -- The church's history is also entwined with the history of the city of Kent and with the founding of Buchtel College, which became the University of Akron. The church's involvement in the events surrounding the May 4th 1970 Kent State shootings is important (they counselled conscientious objectors beforehand and hosted an “illegal” memorial service for the victims during martial law). More recently, they were pioneers of GLBT rights, and the same-sex wedding of their minister was the first published in the wedding section of the local paper, the Record Courier. There is documentation for all of this, and perhaps publishing an article before assembling the documentation put the “cart before the horse,” but it’s still an topic worthy of a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimruch (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notability of ministers, congregation, and/or building add up. BTW, note that a good Alternative To Deletion would be to Merge or Redirect to the church's row (which I just added) in List of Unitarian, Universalist, and Unitarian Universalist churches, where a picture and a 2-3 sentence summary description can/should be provided. One reason that Merge or Redirect is better than Deletion because it would keep the edit history (at the redirect left behind) and keep Talk page discussion, allowing in the future for the article to be revised in ways that meet any complaints. But IMO the church meets separate article notability. --do ncr am 04:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as this is still noticeably too focused with specifications such as what the inside looks like and other architecture jobs they've applied in the past and then what activities the church itself has been involved with such as numbers of members, musical events, services, book sales and also planned kids activities (what church has never had this?); none of that actually substantial an article here as there's also this information about any church, thus we cannot automatically keep every article because of that; aside from its age, there are no claims of historical connections pr otherwise outstanding claims, therefore this also suggests there would not be enough for a convincing article. With this said, it would basically sinply be best mentioned at the local community's own article as a limited amount of information. Had this been part of a national or international organization, there may have been some better claims there, but there is not. Also, the 2 Keep votes above specifically mention other matters such as that it's significant to the community and claims like this, but that's still not an actual basis if how and why we can keep this independently. The next comment then mentions about merging and redirecting L, essentially suggesting it may in fact not even be acceptable, but they then finish "it meets independent notability".SwisterTwister talk 23:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(my earlier comment removed)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems rather unnecessary because I have explained in detail why this article is unacceptable, both about this AfD and the article. SwisterTwister talk 17:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "A church = ministers + congregation + building, and this one is notable in all three respects." There are countless examples on Wikipedia of separate notability of buildings, organizations, and individuals. An organization can be notable without their specific building (which is the case for most high schools and even city governments), a building can be notable simply because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (including churches) or has its own significant coverage, and individuals can obviously be notable for many reasons without being part of a notable organization. Likewise, just because a notable individual was part of an organization doesn't necessarily make that organization notable on its own, nor does occupying a notable building. The UU's neighbor in Kent, the Franklin Township Hall, is notable because the building is listed on the NRHP. If it wasn't listed, the building would simply be mentioned in the government section of the Franklin Township, Portage County, Ohio article. Freedom Congregational Church is another listing on the NRHP and the article is about the structure. Of course the history of the building is going to make mention of the congregation that uses/used it, but not as the WP:SCOPE of the article. Further, if the building wasn't listed on the NRHP, it wouldn't be notable based on current sourcing.

Organizations (schools and congregations especially) can, and often do, move. Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) is notable and its current and past buildings are mentioned, but in context as part of the overall subject. The current building itself is not notable and the only individuals mentioned are those who have notability on their own. But no, as of yet, I still haven't seen evidence that the Kent UU congregation has received significant coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE, the building itself isn't listed on the NRHP (and no attempt is currently being made to do so), and the only notable member I can find so far is John R. Buchtel and he wasn't a member very long. Again, the issue here is whether or not the sources show notability and not simple routine coverage. This isn't an issue of the state of the article or it lacking in sources. See also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT.

I also fail to see why SwisterTwister's philosophy on article deletion has any relevance here and believe that could be considered a personal attack. The only personal information that would have any relevance here is if an editor has a direct tie to the subject of the article (i.e. is a member of the congregation), and could potentially have a conflict of interest and/or could be attempting to canvass. Please refrain from those kinds of statements. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree. (my earlier comment removed)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but is still irrelevant to this discussion. Past deletion discussions and AfDs only have relevance here if they reference some sort of policy precedent or to point out a potential conflict of interest, both directly related to this article. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(my earlier comment removed)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

An available source about the church is a two-box archive at Kent State University, with summary history (a citable source itself)
The church's involvement with the Kent State shooting deserves to be told more. The church's history page summarizes notable young person William F. Schulz's involvement, starting as a 20-year-old minister there in 1970 (before the May 4, 1970 Kent State shooting). More can be said about him (although he appears not to have been the main minister of the church, and is not yet mentioned in the article) and the church. The source in the article about the church defying an order not to congregate, and its resolutions, is currently a source from the church itself, but I expect this is covered in other unassociated reliable sources. Kent State campus was completely evacuated I gather; a UU church would have been a center for activity then, I would expect. News articles nowadays are routinely online, but 1970 was pre-internet.
There is vast coverage related to Kent State; see for example this 162-page (unusually long) NRHP site nomination document. (By the way it shows a map of campus and shooting location on page 82. Where is church located, relative to this?) I don't see the UU church mentioned in the 162-pager directly, but the document is focused upon the on-campus site of shooting, and it cites many sources that we can't check online. There are probably masters theses and dissertations about Kent State, too.

--do ncr am 20:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I kinda agree with Tomwsulcers math, a marginal or better gng claim in three areas seems enough to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Tomwsulcer and because my search on google books of "Unitarian Universalist Church" + Kent Ohio turned up a trail of notability going back a century. (User:SwisterTwister's assertion about present article is invalid and, coming form an experienced editor, inane since the standard at AFD is the notability of the topic, not the present condition of the article which can be tagged for improvement).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Citing how the article contains nothing but what the church activities such as childrens' activities, luncheons, etc. are not what makes an encyclopedia, actual substance is, the same goes for actually listing mere local sources about what they want to say about their local church. I have also not been the only one to cite these concerns above, and once we start accepting such trivial articles that contain information that may as well be from the local town listing, we're not a suitable encyclopedia for anything. SwisterTwister talk 01:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Sufficient RSs establishing notability. pretty IittIe Iiar 07:05, 3 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) 05:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eastside Educational Trust[edit]

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

Originally CSD by SwisterTwister which I declined on grounds of significant claims to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not finding substantially better myself and I still note what I said with my tagging summary: "Nothing actually salvageable, see "introduce children of all ages to the arts and literature in London and to raise young people's standards of achievement in language, literacy and artistic endeavour by unlocking the creative potential in everyone". The advert-like concerns here are enough to delete alone, since it's all focused with PR, the sources are certainly not any better including their own source-listed websites. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, sadly - they feel like they should be notable, but I've found nothing non-primary to base an article on. All seven GNews hits are passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surel's Place[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG. 10 pages of Google News hits did not turn one source from outside Boise. The prior AfD did not argue ORG, and there was a source from outside Boise mentioned. But, I believe it's irrelevant as it is bylined to an Idaho Statesman reporter and obviously a reprint. John from Idegon (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's may be edgy, but from my POV it has enough sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of available sources. Source examples include those listed below. Another option is to merge to Garden City, Idaho. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Shrinky Dinks becomes a serious art medium. Who knew?". The News & Observer.

– The above source demonstrates that the topic meets WP:AUD. The News & Observer is published in another state, in Raleigh, North Carolina.

"Surel's Place". Boise Weekly.
"Treasure Valley visual arts groups mix it up". Idaho Statesman.
"Building A Neighborhood Of Artists". Boise State Public Radio.

Comment - The "Shrinky Dink" story is the one I mentioned above. It's clearly reprinted out of the Statesman, and not really a discussion in detail of the subject. It's about 1 exhibition there. Still not seeing ORG. 07:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not against a merge to Garden City, Idaho. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Keep Surel's Place is notable as the only artist in residence program in Idaho. I don't get out there for every exhibition, obviously, but I'll keep an eye out and add to the gallery accordingly. That most of the references are local is neither here nor there. kencf0618 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus remains strong that this list's specific topic is supported by sources and not indiscriminate or trivial. postdlf (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of the United States with facial hair[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of United states presidents with facial hair during their tenure

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

This is a trivial list, and the sources will not overcome the fact this is not an encyclopedic list that can withstand scrutiny in the creation of an encyclopedia that has worldwide applications. There is no good reason to have this list and not have an equivalent list for the leaders of many other countries. This is especially true since all US presidents who were not clean shaven served at a time when the United States was not even considered one of the major powers. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Richard Nixon is an example of why this list is unworkably flawed. Nixon would shave his face twice a day because his facial hair grew so fast. So at times during his presidency, those times in the early morning and just before his 2nd shave of the day, he had noticeable amounts of facial hair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know a lot of people find this fascinating. It's an example of how styles change over the years. Czolgolz (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact there is no such list for other countries does not make this one candidate for deletion. Lets create those lists instead of removing the one we have. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – There are similar lists for other countries. See List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair and List of Prime Ministers of New Zealand with facial hair. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if this doesn't pass the nominator's scrutiny it passes mine. I have a nagging feeling that I might be persuaded by a well-considered nomination but this one falls far short. Thincat (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scientists have studied facial hair's effect on elections. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an argument for Facial hair and elections not for this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken. Delete. Somebody create Effect of facial hair on elections instead. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. The topic is notable – see A Beard is Born, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - distracting unencyclopedic listcruft. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The arguments from all the previous AfDs still hold. This is a notable topic, even if silly, as it has been discussed at length by multiple sources. No new novel arguments against its existence have been provided. Passes our notability standards. Absolutely keep. Fieari (talk) 05:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over 100 years of RS sources and you want it deleted?? Meets the GNG and then some... The Steve 09:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Yeah it's got some sources, but it's trivial and provides little value. There's no great "analysis" to come from this. "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I think this is kind of silly, but so is List of winged unicorns. It's survived 3 previous AfDs, time to drop the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 21:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not encyclopedic and irrelevant topic and content. In best case is a potentially subject for a ”Did You Know” article somewhere outside Wikipedia, on some blog. --XXN, 08:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I'm sort of surprised such an odd list exists, it seems to meet notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the topic of "Presidents of the United States with facial hair" has not been a topic of independent inquiry by reliable sources. This appears to be OR and "listcruft". K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References 10, 21 and 22 say otherwise. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the references (10, 21, and 22), I am not sure they support the notability of this list (Presidents of the United States with facial hair). Instead, the scholarly references are: Reference 10 - studies whether facial hair is a voting cue for all politicians, not just presidential candidates; Reference 21 - a study which tries to predict elections solely on biographical details of presidential candidates (including facial hair as one of 59 variables); Reference 22 - a newspaper article about research of how facial hair might impact presidential elections. The sources in references 10 and 22 point to additional research of how people perceive people with facial hair, and there could be a good article about facial hair in politics generally, (as the introduction to the existing article suggests). If I were to make a recommendation it would be to rename the article and focus it on facial hair in American politics or something similar. - Enos733 (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm convinced. Changed lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The multitude of reliable sources that report about particular presidents' facial hair and how it may have impacted their image demonstrate the lasting notability of the topic. I understand, but ultimately do not agree with, the argument above that only an article about the more general subject is appropriate; there is no basis to omit reliable popular media in analyzing notability. (The article is replete with sources but here are a few more examples: [45][46][47][48]) And I strongly disagree with the "delete" arguments predicated on simply calling this list "trivia" or some other belittling term, which stated in such terms strike me as a variant of IDONTLIKEIT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, collection of indiscriminate information and moreover nonsensical; all men (i.e., all U.S. presidents so far) grow facial hair. Not a notable topic per references in article, as analyzed per Enos733 above, who seems to be the only person to have actually examined the sources. This is the kind of bullshit that gives Wikipedia a bad name. As mentioned above, an article about beards in politics generally might have a better chance at survival. Sandstein 13:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:LISTN as a group that has been discussed in-depth by reliable sources. SST flyer 09:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep facial hair amongst US presidents, or lack of it, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - I found [49] very quickly. I don't see this as trivia if it's getting this kind of coverage. The fact that we don't have equivalent lists for other countries is not an argument for deletion. Hut 8.5 21:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of sources. The arguments that there's no good inclusion criteria are silly. This is clearly about presidents who intentionally maintained a beard and/or mustache. Picking nits about Nixon's Five O'Clock Shadow is meaningless. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Digging somewhat deeper into the sources cited in the article, I see:

Chicago Tribune
New York Times
Boston Globe
Los Angeles Times

I did not examine every source cited, but these four are all to major US newspapers. So, I think we can put to bed the lack of WP:RS argument. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The newspaper sources are about presidential and vice presidential candidates, not the presidents themselves. Again, I suggest that the content remain and that the article be renamed in such a way to reflect that the reliable sourced content are about the political implications of facial hair, not the list of Presidents who sported facial hair. The Slate article mentioned by Hut 8.5 is titled "Beards in Politics," and again focuses on presidential and vice presidential candidates AND talks about modern US politicians with facial hair. To me, the "list" approaches WP:OR, but the content is good, encyclopedic content. - Enos733 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources, this seems to be a valid topic. If there's a better way to present this (either in article vs. list form, or under a better title), I have no objection to either of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as relevant as height and plenty of reliable sources discussing its relevance in elections, though in need of a much needed rewrite to match that article's comprehensiveness.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Serious and not serious reasons exist, and I think this is a notable list of fashion trends. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of Australia with facial hair, this is a quirky topic but there are reliable sources that examine it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:36, 2 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) 05:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dex Lauper[edit]

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

Outside of being the son of famous musicians, subject is not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the sources are primarily based on his mother's notability. WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so he's not automatically entitled to an article just because he has famous parents — but nothing claimed or sourced here gets him over WP:NMUSIC as having attained notability in his own right yet. A lot of the sources here just briefly mention his name in coverage of Cyndi rather than being about him — and the ones that are about him are a mix of unreliable sources (Perez Hilton's blog), non-substantive blurbs and reference-bombed repetitions of the exact same article in its original source and followup reprints in aggregators (see #10-12, which are all the same article in three different reprints, and thus not three distinct sources.) No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he actually passes NMUSIC for something, but nothing written or sourced here gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Consider snow. Not sure that anyone can really argue that this belongs. TimothyJosephWood 17:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Frederick Forbes[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search brought up very, very little to establish notability. Most of the coverage for him is WP:TRIVIAL, as it just mentions that he was somewhere or was affiliated with someone. Trivial sources cannot give notability and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by any association with notable persons or locations. The best source is the literary journal, however that by itself isn't enough to establish notability and the other sources aren't enough to establish notability as they're all essentially primary or trivial. It also doesn't help that this is one of several articles written in a walled garden. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, borderline WP:CSD#A7 in fact. No evidence of notability, and strong suspicions that this is a vanity article. To resurrect a temr of art from olden times: vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 08:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above - David Gerard (talk) 13:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as by far nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This academic has published a couple of books, one of which gets a mention in a Boston Globe review of literary news [50], but this is not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. Also, I note the related Draft:Sean Frederick Forbes, where this article was developed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan/vanity page that does not satisfy any notability criteria. Agricola44 (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrot Top Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The references are mainly primary ones off the label's website or store site, and the secondaries are namedrops in larger articles with no WP:SIGCOV involved. Original AfD probably should have closed no consensus NPASR due to lack of participation if nothing else. MSJapan (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I also concur the 1st AfD was another case of a too quick close; examining this is actually not finding what could make it both independently notable and convincing, since the largest information there is here is a clients list. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page. No indications of notability or significance; notability is not inherited from notable performers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 20 year history of signing notable artists. Listed in Billboard as a significant Chicago indie label. Notable per NMUSIC#5. Notability not inherited from artists, but notable by the criteria by which record labels gain notability, which is by influencing culture by releasing, over a period of time, culturally significant releases by culturally significant artists. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrot Top Records commenters: Seraphimblade (talk · contribs), Michig (talk · contribs), TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs), and Everymorning (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contra to 78.26, we are not talking about the definition of notability one might find on Wiktionary, but the specific Wikipedia definition of notability. Nothing the subject is or does confers notability in that regard. One thing, and one thing only, confers it—the availability of substantial amounts of reference material written about the subject (directly about the subject, not about something affiliated with the subject) by sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. No number of name drops or blurbs in such sources confers notability in that regard, nor does "influence" or anything else. I couldn't find that type of reference material before (hence the previous nomination), and I still see no reason to believe it exists now. As to "NMUSIC #5", firstly, this is notability criteria for a band (per the guideline: "musicians or ensembles"), not a label, so that doesn't apply here as the article is not about a band. NMUSIC #5 also specifically references major record labels with a specific pointer to the article about major labels. This label is not listed there, nor can I find any reference indicating that it is considered a major label and should be on that list. All that aside, even if it did meet that SNG, meeting an SNG confers a presumption of notability, but that is a rebuttable presumption if the references can be shown to in fact not be out there (the guideline even says "may be notable" if they meet such a criterion). In this case, they are, to the best of my ability to find, not in existence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You ceased reading NMUSIC#5 too soon. I never claimed that Carrot Top was one of the major record labels. These are very, very few. Instead, the salient point is what follows: "one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." According to this, Carrot Top Records easily fits the definition of "one of the more important indie labels." It comes down to what makes a record label notable, and I already presented my case on that point. As a discographer, I would be sorry to see this article go, even though I have no particular interest in the genres generally recorded by this label. The article presents disparate, useful, and verifiable information from a variety of reliable sources, regarding a topic which will be of interest to musicologists, disographers, and music historians when researching certain areas of Chicago (and much broader because of its distributions) music. As such, I can see no benefit to the encyclopedia should this article be deleted, and in fact some harm. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is unconvincing; it's largely a list of the acts that published with the label (cited to the latter's web site) and does not really provide any content of value to the readers. I honestly don't see anything worth salvaging. I looked for sources but could find only passing one line mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article is of little interest to the general reader, but Wikipedia is a specialist encyclopedia as well as a general encyclopedia. To someone who performs the type of research I do (although my research is towards much older record label entities), the article contains information about the when and why of its founding, how it played a role in a distribution debate between independent labels and major retailers, that that label also had direct retail interests, and that it additionally acted as a distributor. Yes, the article is a stub, but the information contained is WP:V. Because of the length of history and the large number of notable artists, the topic is highly likely to draw interest from discographers/musicologists. Specialized, sure, but I respectfully disagree that it provides no value to any reader, and therefore the encyclopedia is not improved by its deletion. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MindMeld[edit]

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

WP:NOTPROMO and no assertion of notability. The sources primarily detail funding cycles, and I don't actually see a product mentioned anywhere. The "awards" aren't really for anything tangible, either. MSJapan (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Funding rounds don't make an encyclopedic article - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on WP:SIGCOV in Fast Company, Business Insider, and Digital Trends. Also, TechCrunch. These are all articles about the company's AI app. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Safehaven86: I normally wouldn't ping for a vote, but I think in this case you need to be aware that, according to a COI editor on the article talk, the app "was a demo that has been discontinued." So all that coverage is meaningless hype. They have no viable product, and the coverage would only be usable for notability of the app, which never actually existed. MSJapan (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Is it possible the app existed but was discontinued? This article in Entrepreneur magazine says "More than 1,200 companies are using MindMeld to power the voice-recognition feature on their user interfaces...MindMeld is free of charge until it processes 1,000 voice queries per month; after that, volume-based monthly fees range from $49 (for up to 10,000 voice searches) to $1,999 (for up to 800,000 voice searches)." Based on that, it seems the app must have been live at some point. Safehaven86 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd note the "clients" could be unsubstantiated claims by the CEO. I'm more inclined to lean towards the talk page comment being correct, as there's literally nothing on their own website to support the level of usage claimed - there's literally no press from 2015 linked in their press room area. If the company won't even say that they have 1200 clients, I've got to wonder, and I don't know why you kill a startup product with that kind of userbase. BTW, it's exactly this kind of thing that drives reliance on "sources independent of the subject." There's no other article on the app that claims that userbase, either. I think the only thing we can say for certain is that it was a short-lived product, and that runs afoul of the second part of WP:NTEMP. The COI was disclosed as an affiliated account here, so if they say it was a demo, then I'm inclined to believe that and weight the material accordingly. MSJapan (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, "MindMeld 2.0" was "currently in trial with Spotify" as of December 2015. Their own website says "MindMeld launched its core offering, the MindMeld platform, in 2014." So it seems like there was a 2014 launch, then 2.0 launched in 2015, then MindMeld TV launched in 2016. I'm not sure any of this is getting us closer to establishing WP:GNG. The point's well taken that if we can't find precise, well-sourced info on the company history, it makes it hard to write an encyclopedic article on it. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as anything that has been offered and added is PR and PR alone, exactly like what unifies both the information and sources, the awards are entirely PR and trivial, nothing that comes close at all to actual substance. Given the sheer state of churnalism, simply stating that there are listed major news sources is not meaning anything at all if the contents themselces are PR and company PR alone. To state the obvious, the article itself only happily goes to state the specifics about what there is to advertise about the company which what it is, the services and how it works. Examining the history again shows the clear PR connections and it's entirely unbelievable and unacceptable this was actually accepted at AfC given that I especially would never accept such fluff-puff. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial content with a (usual) list of awards and recognition, all of which are minor. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was some support for the applicability of at least the spirit of criterion 3 of WP:CREATIVE. I don't see that this argument carried the day, but neither was there a clear consensus to delete at this time. I suspect we'll be here again unless better sourcing is found, however. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Glasgow[edit]

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

Not notable. The only mention I can find in third party RSs is this. As a PhD student he definitely does not meet WP:PROF's institutional criteria and his original publications don't appear to have made much impact. At least one of them is through a vanity press. There is a claim on the talk page that translating a notable work (i.e. Heidegger) is significant but I think that's a stretch. Joe Roe (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Perhaps the article could use some work, but Wikipedia seems best with more information to enhance readers' knowledge than otherwise. Conspirasee1 (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Conspirasee1: Arguments in an AfD should be based on policy and the characteristics of this particular article/subject, not a general preference for inclusion. Joe Roe (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the Keep vote is not actually convincing how he's applicably notable (such as for WP:PROF) and where, when and how this can be improved; GoogleScholar and WorldCat have not shown anything, and the article's contents show nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see that the argument to delete this article is that convincing either. The subject seems relevant enough and my point prior was that it is better to elaborate upon what's already written instead of removing what could be much more informative. Conspirasee1 (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep Translators and language-editors typically 'disappear' behind the actual author. Together with his own writings and the unusual recognition (unusual for free lance writer, translator and philosopher) of being invited to fairly high-level conferences such as the ESF-EMBO one in the references, I think a case for 'remain' could be made. Mind article is meanwhile de-orphanized.192.129.2.114 (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder whether (in general, but also in this particular case) point 3. of WP:AUTHOR (Creative professionals) applies for translators. In Glasgows case, Heidegger, Monterroso as well as Martha Freud seem applicably notable.192.129.2.114 (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As for Martha Freud, the translation of Glasgow is of a biography about Martha Freud, and thus this may not actually apply.192.129.2.114 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure translators could do with more recognition but Wikipedia is not the place to affect that change. If we were to follow the logic that translating a notable work makes one notable, the Harry Potter books alone would spawn 70+ BLPs overnight. Fundamentally, notability is about the likelihood of finding sufficient sources to verify an article. Translating a moderately well known book is not going to achieve that. Nor is being invited to speak at a conference (which I don't think is quite as unusual as you think it is). The fact is neither Glasgow or is work (translations and otherwise) have been the subject of more than trivial coverage in third party reliable sources. Joe Roe (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that there are sufficient sources to verify the article. The citation list -after some work- contains several web pages of well known organisations such as the Goethe Institut and various universities where the necessary information can be found. His books are all available, but also cited (36 citations for "Madness, Masks and Laughter" according to google scholar). His translations are also easily found online and cited (176 citations for his translation of "The value of privacy" in google scholar). The issue that remains would be the "more than trivial coverage in third party reliable sources". For this matter I think that his output and the sources in this article are within the standards used for the entries in the category English Translators. (please browse the category).Epaisios (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's been difficult for us to easily quantify whether independent scholars are notable, since the don't have named chairs or other traditional indicia. I think the Google scholar test and h-score are probably the best, adjusting for the field of study. In this case, his large number of citations, considering his lack of university affiliation, lean towards notability. Bearian (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Where are you getting those metrics from? As far as I can tell, his work as an independent scholar (i.e. excluding his translations of others' work) has barely any citations. According to Google Scholar Madness, masks, and laughter, published 21 years ago, has 36 citations; all the rest less have than five and many of those are of dubious reliability. His h-index would be very low (I haven't found it calculated anywhere). Joe Roe (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am counting his translations. If that is not the consensus, Joe Roe I'll go along with the crowd. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Bearian: I think it's fair to say that that's the main point of contention. Citation metrics are usually used to show WP:PROF#C1, which is "The person's research has made significant impact". I don't think translating somebody else's research counts as the subject's research. Joe Roe (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, judgement of impact/ notability can consider both the impact that translations made, and the impact of work as author.192.129.2.114 (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The impact as translator may fall under WP:CREATIVE, as criterion 3, namely "major role in co-creating a significant (...) work". I would thus think that, in general, this could be used to argue for the notability/ impact of translators. As for the present entry, jointly considering own work and translations may indeed make a case for keeping.192.129.2.114 (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A PhD student notable as a scholar, seriously? We still need substantial third-party coverage per WP:GNG, and there's not much if any here. Sandstein 19:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The status as Phd student in itself cannot be an argument against-notability / for-deletion, I think.80.187.108.90 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My conclusion from the discussion above is that notability is at around threshold leaning to above-threshold for WP:CREATIVE#C3-alone (as translator), and around threshold leaning towards below-threshold for WP:PROF#C1-alone (as writer), but that together a reasonable case for keep can be made (223 entries in Google scholar).80.187.108.90 (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Grayhm[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an actor who does not yet have any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. An actor is not automatically entitled to an article the moment he can be verified as having one role in one television series; it takes multiple significant roles in multiple projects, or acting awards, or at least sufficient reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. But the sourcing here is parked on a Q&A-style interview (not a source which can assist notability, because the subject is talking about himself), a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that's about one of the other actors in the series, and a casting announcement blurb -- which means GNG has not been met, and the claim itself is not substantive enough to exempt him from having to be sourced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all film directors are notable, and there is not enough coverage to suggest he passes GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was more than the Deadline coverage to be found, but the coverage mainly mentioned him as joining Between's cast in articles about Netflix or the show itself, so it was the kind of coverage which doesn't cover the subject in detail. There were also some articles about other projects which mentioned him, which makes this a bit trickier and we withhold from voting delete, but I think it might be a stretch to keep. Maybe I'll once again give him the benefit of doubt and say WP:TOOSOON. Even a single big article would have bent me over to voting keep. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I added 4 articles containing Thunder Road coverage. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. All references in article are minor mentions, no in-depth coverage. MB 01:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale at WP:UNOPPOSED. No keep rationale has been provided. In this case... WP:RELISTINGISEVIL. We have our answer.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryos (DJ)[edit]

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

No indication of meeting notability guidelines. References are either primary, paid for content, or routine listings. noq (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artist has been releasing music via Spinnin' Records, one of the most notable EDM record labels in the world. Not only that, he's been releasing via Hardwell's record label as well "Revealed Recordings". Hardwell is currently the second best DJ in the world. Also, Ryos has been getting massive coverage from many reliable sources. He also performed with some of the most famous singers and musicians like Ariana Grande, J.Cole and many more on the Billboard Hot 100 music festival. His music will definitely get into a national chart soon and by then he will be notable enough as per WP:MUSICBIO. - Rizzal Hopper (talk) 10:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Who he releases music through is not enough to establish notability. Where is the massive coverage in reliable sources - I'm not seeing any and there is nothing in the article that would qualify for that. Who he has performed with is also irrelevant as notability is not inherited. Your prediction that he will chart soon is WP:CRYSTAL. As yet, there is no notability so this article is WP:TOOSOON. noq (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 15:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Appears to have no works that have charted or won significant awards; nothing to support notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not weighing in either keep or delete here, but I agree that the numerous sources are basically just junk. What's left after they are screened out is at least one possible sign of notability: a billed appearance at the Billboard hot 100 music fest. I don't know much about this fest other than it's primary existence is to promote Billboard. I assume his inclusion in the line up must count for something, but I'm puzzled by why an artist worthy enough of participation lacks other obvious signs of outside, independent notability, which many (though not all) of the other artists at this fest seem to have. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; basically an advertorial with junk sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete supporting speedy. Violates WP:ADV, a long-established guideline. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is it possible if you can provide the data of this deleted page so that I can re-use it in the future to re-create this article once the subject qualifies for the requirements? - TheMagnificentist (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speediedafter I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Intercultural Alliance of Artists & Scholars, Inc. (IAAS)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Neither of the sources confers actual notability. This is part of a walled garden. Any 501c3 will be listed in Guidestar. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this organization is notable enough for an article at this point in time. The best thing I found was this link, which isn't really about the organization but rather a book that its leader edited, and this story that briefly mentions IAAS in passing, making both WP:TRIVIAL sources as far as the organization goes. If and I stress if her article survives deletion then this could maybe redirect there, but I would recommend against any redirects or merges until the AfDs settle and we see what - if anything - remains. The whole lot is so promotional and needs such extensive editing that even if even one of these articles survive deletion I'd recommend WP:TNT-ing the lot because of the WP:PUFFERY. All of that aside, all I can really find are things that show that the organization exists, which does not give notability in and of itself. An organization can exist and do nice things, however none of that gives notability. (WP:ITEXISTS, WP:NOBLECAUSE) To be honest, the only people that have really written about this organization are people and organizations that are related to it in some form or fashion. This article is far, far less promotional than the other articles, but as a whole the tone of the articles make a fairly good case as to why editing with a COI needs to be done very, very carefully. I'd also say that if any of these articles do survive deletion, that it'd be a good idea to restrict both editors from making any direct edits to the articles to prevent promotional edits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found the Boston Globe article too, but, as Tokyogirl79 points out, it just mentions the organization in passing. A New York City arts organization with so little press coverage is surprising. One would expect at least event listings in the Village Voice. But no. John Nagle (talk) 05:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all due dispatch. Plainly created for promotional purposes. Guy (Help!) 08:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the whole 2Leaf spam cluster with it - David Gerard (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of Rentals[edit]

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

A property management company without tons (or even ounces) of references. Fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't even make any claim of notability. No independent RS. Fails WP:CORP. MB 01:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've removed most of the promotional tone but subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing provided or found suggests that this is more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero coverage to be found aside from internet yellow pages and a few reviews from customers. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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] Private correspondence: 24-09-2016 e-mail

[2] Guo, K.J., Yolles, M., Fink, G., Iles, P., 2016, The Changing Organisation: Agency Theory in a Cross-cultural Context, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming.

[1]

[2]