Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 September	23 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) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Ayasrah[edit]

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

Nonnotable " political analyst, academic and writer" Staszek Lem (talk) 23:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject lacks any coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one-source alone can never pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page; I cannot locate any RS on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 29 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, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Moreaux[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician, consisting of a single statement that she exists and entirely failing to mention a single thing about her that could even be measured for whether it gets her over WP:MUSIC or not. And neither of the sources here adds much of anything either: she has independently released one EP to iTunes (whereas a person has to release two albums on a real label before the fact that their music exists becomes notability in and of itself), she played one show at Dillons Bar & Grill in Sacramento, she sang the national anthem at a minor league baseball game. And none of the coverage is particularly non-local either -- she's originally from Monterey, California, so even Sacramento isn't nearly far enough from her home to really count as genuinely extralocalized coverage. As always, a musician is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists -- she has to pass one or more WP:NMUSIC criteria to earn one. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 23 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) 00:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable country singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches didn't turn up enough for GNG. She's most likely WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:37, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kotlook[edit]

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

No indication that this portmanteau term is used anywhere. Even the lone reference provided does not use it. Pichpich (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the "reference" appears to be a mock-up for an online retail site; it contains Lorem ipsum text and meta-comments on what the finished web page should look like. Possibly ref-spam. Cnilep (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V; an unreferenced essay. I cannot locate any sources on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like a made-up term by creator of article; I don't see any sign of notability. Anup [Talk] 02:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Levrose[edit]

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

Delete. Advertorially toned article about a real estate company, whose only evident claim of notability under WP:CORP is that it's been ranked as a "top local company" in local listicles. For sourcing, all we have here is a business directory which just verifies the company's existence but does nothing to support notability, a press release on the website of an affiliated agency, and a blurb which just names the top company on one of the ranking lists while entirely failing to mention this company at all. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes -- in addition to the fact that the sourcing here doesn't even pass basic WP:GNG, companies have the added burden of also having to pass WP:AUD on the basis of media coverage expanding significantly beyond the purely local, which nothing here does. In addition, the article was created by a user named "LRE123", a probable conflict of interest. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR directory on which a company is entitled to start an article about itself just because it exists -- RS coverage, supporting a valid claim of notability per CORP, has to be shown for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that it the wording looked like it belonged on a company website than on Wikipedia. It lacks real information on the subject and only serves to promote the subject. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 22:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Promotionally toned and written by SPA with probably COI. MB 02:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't care about COI as much as I care about the fact that no notability has been established. Longstanding Wikipedia consensus is that Business Journals, while sourceable for information, do not confer notability. Directories absolutely don't confer notability. And the best google news comes up with for this company are local newspapers only, which are insufficient to convey notability. Delete. Fieari (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly advertorial. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improve or Delete Article is too promotional in nature and lacks sufficient references. Making the Inc 500 list is a highly notable, but no other significant sources or indications of notability. Author should improve the article ASAP with 1) further references from reputable international media, 2) more insightful content about the company's activities, coverage, history, etc. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 16:07, 29 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 under WP:CSD#G7. — ξ ^xplicit 05:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Nuell[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this would be deleted. What do I need to do to get this page up to your standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debra719 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - author has blanked the article and it is now marked for speedy delete as "author blanked" . Suggest withdrawal of AfD by proposer reddogsix or snow close. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:53, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Streaming and Satellite TV Packages[edit]

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

Unreferenced and unverified list of information that is exactly what the article title says it is, and Wikipedia surely isn't a comparison site to help you decide which TV package is best for you – see WP:NOTGUIDE. It doesn't even say which country this list refers to, although I assume it's the US. I considered it as a speedy delete under A9, but I'm not sure if it qualifies. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A source of programming, such as Sling TV is the only reference that is verifiable. It is an authoritative source and there is no source for that data other than the company providing the service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibapah (talk • contribs) 21:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced list, per nom I don't think Wikipedia is meant to help consumers determine what the best type of streaming or satellite tv packages might be the best fit. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:58, 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) 05:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcas Osei Sarfo[edit]

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

The standard for notability under WP:PROF is worldwide, and she does not meet it. I support some degree of flexibility, but not to the extent of a chemist whose most cited papers have been cited no more than 11 times [1] DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a worthy person, but WP:Prof and WP:GNG are not satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Being the first Ghanaian female chemist is something that could plausibly make her notable, but only if there are independent reliable sources that actually note it and cover her in-depth, giving her a pass of WP:GNG. I don't see those sources, and I also don't see evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near passing the notability guidelines for chemists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Former Adath Jeshurun of Jassy Synagogue[edit]

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

nonotable defunct synagogue, sourced from blog. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A book called The Lower East Side Remembered and Revisited: History and Guide to a Legendary New York Neighborhood devotes significant coverage to both the congregation and the structure.

A book called Salute to the Romanian Jews in America and Canada, 1850-2010: History, Achievements, and Biographies also devotes significant coverage to this synagogue.

A book called Walking Manhattan: 30 Strolls Exploring Cultural Treasures, Entertainment Centers, and Historical Sites in the Heart of New York City gives a history of the building.

This article in the New York Sun says "Between Allen and Eldridge streets, the former synagogue built for Congregation Adath Jeshurun of Jassy, on the north side of Rivington, is one of the architectural highlights of the Lower East Side. Erected in 1903, it was designed by Emery Roth at the same time he designed his wonderful Hotel Belleclaire on Broadway at 77th Street. Between the Moorish style of the synagogue and the Art Nouveau of the apartment hotel, you'd never guess that the Hungarian émigré had only recently assisted his mentor Richard Morris Hunt in the design of the grand Beaux-Arts Breakers mansion in Newport, R.I." Emery Roth was a highly notable New York architect of that era, and there is a strong presumption that a building he designed is notable.

This academic source called The Synagogues of New York's Lower East Side: A Retrospective and Contemporary View says "Once considered the most beautiful of the small synagogues on the Lower East Side, this imposing former house of worship was originally called Adath Jeshurun of Jassy, for the Jews who emigrated from Iasi (Jassy), Romania. One cannot help but be struck by the impressive appearance of the tan and cream brick structure with its Moorish design, exemplified by the twin towers with projecting cornices and the stone lions peeking out of the towers near the top, as well as by the huge framed circular window that once held an immense Mogen David."

This synagogue is notable.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's sometimes challenging to distinguish which sources are discussing the Adath Jeshurun of Jassy synagogue versus the nearby Kahal Adath Jeshurun synagogue nearby (which is now the Eldridge Street Synagogue. Nevertheless, I think there are probably sufficient sources that offer coverage to this structure to warrant its inclusion (I'll note as an aside that the Salute source listed above is self-published and so insufficient for the project's standards). The proper title for the article is a separate, editorial concern. I'm distinctly un-fond of the current formulation, as it never was properly named "Former" anything. Potential titles include Congregation Adath Jeshurun of Jassy or any of several variation of its later titling by a Polish congregation (such as Erste Warshawer Synagogue--which I personally favor--or First Warsaw Synagogue). The building is currently sectioned into residences and art-studio spaces, and lacks a definitive name so far as I can determine. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The synagogue is notable, and much of the challenge in finding sources is related to the variant names and similarly titled neighbors. This source in The Lower East Side Remembered and Revisited: History and Guide to a Legendary New York is probably best. Alansohn (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per sources listed above by Cullen, this synagogue meets WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a pretty notable historic building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 28 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 Snow Keep as this is another example where, regardless of history, high schools themselves are in fact notable (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Airy High School[edit]

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

Page was created by user with history of vandalism - probably for the purpose of listing his high school in 2nd place in the top ranking high school. Suspicious and unsourced. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Above reasons MordeKyle (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Coverage of this high school is abundant in reliable sources, the school was founded over 120 years ago, and it has a very famous alumni, Andy Griffith. Indisputably notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andy Griffith is the icing on the cake here. Significant alumnus whose hometown had a major impact on Mayberry. Article definitely needs some improvement, but the local high school there is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a high school, it exists, it's notable. Sources absolutely exist. No reason to delete. Our unofficial motto is "AfD is not cleanup", which I believe applies here. Fieari (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long standing consensus on secondary schools. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - judging by the news coverage this school does nothing but sports, which sounds a little alarming, but clearly notable. I've done a bit of cleanup and deleted a particularly bad sentence, which is a copyvio from the official website. Blythwood (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although created by a trouble maker the page has been improved, and can be improved further. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if Griffith didn't go there, I'd still !vote keep. The community wisely decided long ago to retain secondary schools so editors don't have to waste their time fleshing out and debating the articles of tens of thousands of such schools. --Oakshade (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The diff from the time of the nomination shows that the source from WXII-TV Channel 12 was in the article at the time of nomination. This evidence contradicts the assertion in the nomination that the article was unsourced, as well as the statement of the one delete !vote that is referenced to the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for being unspecific. What I meant to say is that this edit [[2]] by same author which probably was what prompted him to create this page, was suspicious and unsourced. Dhrm77 (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:V#Notability requires one third-party source. The requirement in WP:N that a topic be worthy of notice is realized by WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, which states, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Unscintillating (talk) 14:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have no problem with keeping the page as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as long as it can be improved. Dhrm77 (talk) 23:03, 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. Sandstein 11:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Countable fallacy[edit]

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

No sources, search for the term came up dry. It could be that the concept is known under another name, but as is, it looks like a WP:MADEUP WP:NEOLOGISM. Paradoctor (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a truism that I'm sure has an article in Wikipedia under some other name, but I'm equally sure that this is not a name by which it is known in reliable sources so a redirect is inappropriate. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find anything relevant going by the same title. MordeKyle (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(reluctant) Delete - I tried. I really did. I was so sure that someone, somewhere out there, had used this term to describe this concept. I just can't find it. This article makes sense, it describes a thing that needs a term... and yet, it doesn't seem to be a term that is in use. As I cannot find any mention of the term, despite giving it a good solid try, I have to !vote delete. Sorry. Fieari (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - yeah, this idea exists, but I don't know a more common name for it either. Law of triviality (where you can't cope with very big problems and just focus on more trivial topics at a personal scale) is very similar. I remember it from Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise, where he notes that in baseball (hope I'm using the right terms) ranking batsmen is easy but defending players much harder. But he certainly didn't call it this. Blythwood (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as cheap to McNamara fallacy (aka quantitative fallacy). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that's why I couldn't find it in the list, it was missing. Thanks, that really scratched an itch. :D

A redirect would constitute WP:promotion of a neologism, though, and a user-invented one at that. See WP:RFD#DELETE #8. There are simply no sources that use the term. Paradoctor (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about with Template:R from incorrect name added to aid searching, since neither "McNamara" nor "quantitative" are obvious terms, and "countable+fallacy" is a reasonable search term? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Paradoctor (talk) 12:16, 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 redirect to Tenerife airport disaster . Up to editors whether to merge anything from the history. "Significance noted in article" does not address the deletion rationale. Sandstein 11:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clipper Victor[edit]

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

Not notable - Aircraft is only really notable for the Tenerife airport disaster so doesnt really need a stand-alone article, other claims for notability are the firsst scheduled service and first to be hijacked are not really encyclopedic and without the accident would not get a mention. MilborneOne (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significance noted in article. MordeKyle (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - once the non-cited text is removed there isn't enough for a stand-alone article of any note. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Hijacking on top of the accident tips the scales for me. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the physical plane is notable as much as the hijacking might be (unsure, though). The accident is certainly notable, but again, I don't think the specific plane is. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. This 747 is mainly notable due to hijacking; the aircraft can be covered in detail in the Tenerife airport disaster article or elsewhere. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit more about the hijacking. Fidel Castro was there to see it arrive. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted my post above. There may be a better redirect target than the Tenerife article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 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 redirect to Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Scarlatoiu[edit]

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

We went through this before, in May 2014. Basically, the subject is a functionary in a relatively minor think tank (five employees) who occasionally gets quoted in the press on North Korea human rights stories, but really no other coverage. (Note that the part about his background, education and early career is entirely uncited.) Nice job and all, but nothing here says "notable for an encyclopedia". - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While media citation as an expert is one of the prongs we can use to show an academic is notable, I do not think we have enough on him to justify passing that criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, the organization he is executive director of. I think there's probably just enough to pass WP:GNG for him, but deletion doesn't make sense if we have an article about his organization -- an article that mentions him several times and even includes a photo of him. Here are some of the news stories, etc. I'm seeing in which Scarlatoiu plays a non-trivial role: Telam, UPI, Weekend Edition Sunday (NPR), The Diplomat, Think Progress, Washington Post, The Diplomat, Alphr, Borgen, Nguoi Viet, DW, MarketWatch, Daily Beast, DW, and there are a lot of sources at nknews.org that apparently I can't access because I have "no free posts remaining" (despite never, to my knowledge, using a free post -- eh). Adding in the brief quotes/mentions, he's been quoted by basically every major news organization. Importantly, the links above are only from pages 1-4 (of 20) of a Google News search for his name. The real question is whether the information about him would make more sense in the organization's article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Try as I might, I fail to see the non-trivial role in the links you've mentioned: they all more or less limit their discussion of the subject to the following sentence: "Greg Scarlatoiu is executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea". By all means, let's mention him at the HRNK article - only he already is mentioned, to the extent warranted by the sources. But I'm certainly not seeing anything in the way of significant coverage about the subject himself, as opposed to his being quoted speaking about his area of expertise, which by itself isn't significant coverage. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Try as I might" would typically involve clicking on them :P That very first link there is an article about him. Several others are interviews with him (not just interviews as part of a story, but interviews that are themselves the article). His name runs throughout many of the non-interview articles. The weakest one is probably the Washington Post, which quotes him as one of the authors of the HRNK report, then refers to "the authors". So go ahead and discount that one. I don't know why you're saying these are all "Greg Scarlatoiu is executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea", but regardless of whether you think he's notable, that's just not an accurate representation of what I linked to. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just so there's no ambiguity, I've boiled down all mention of the subject in all the links you provided (save one, more on that in a moment):
Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, told.... Scarlatoiu said.... according to Scarlatoiu.... Scarlatoiu also said.... I'm joined by Greg Scarlatoiu. He is executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of HRNK, said.... Scarlatoiu told.... Scarlatoiu said.... according to Greg Scarlatoiu, who heads a Washington, DC-based advocacy group called Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Scarlatoiu said.... Scarlatoiu said.... To Scarlatoiu.... According to Greg Scarlatoiu and Joseph Bermudez Jr..... Greg Scarlatoiu is the Executive Director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. He has written and spoken extensively about North Korean human rights issues as well as political, security, and economic issues on the Korean Peninsula. He recently spoke with.... the director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, Greg Scarlatoiu, stated that.... Scarlatoiu said.... Scarlatoiu’s comments.... Greg Scarlatoiu, Executive Director for the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea (HRNK).... said Scarlatoiu.... said Scarlatoiu.... According to Scarlatoiu.... Scarlatoiu highlighted.... Scarlatoiu surmises.... said Scarlatoiu.... said Scarlatoiu.... explained Scarlatoiu.... Scarlatoiu estimates.... Scarlatoiu emphasized.... Scarlatoiu warned.... Scarlatoiu highlighted.... Scarlatoiu underscored.... Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the organization.... Scarlatoiu said.... Scarlatoiu believes.... Scarlatoiu believes.... Greg Scarlatoiu of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea and Joseph Bermudez Jr. of AllSource Analysis.... Here’s Scarlatoiu and Bermudez’s theory.... Greg Scarlatoiu of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Scarlatoiu says.... Greg Scarlatoiu of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Greg Scarlatoiu.... Greg Scarlatoiu, executive director of the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea.... Scarlatoiu said.... according to Scarlatoiu....
- - - As you can see, the vast majority either identify who he is or quote him, no more. As for the Télam source, two thoughts arise. One, the fact that a man who's lived for years in Washington, DC (not exactly a place bereft of media) might only draw significant coverage in Buenos Aires (!) says something about his perceived notability in his current hometown. Two, no, the article in question isn't even about him, and doesn't cover him in depth. It's about the class system in North Korea, and has maybe two background sentences about Scarlatoiu. Thus, I'd say the case for notability remains unproven. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Err. Notability is not just about "background sentences". Someone can be notable as an expert in a subject, for their research, for their ideas, for their publications, etc. By your logic someone could be on the front page of every major newspaper and the lead story of every magazine, but if it's only because those newspapers ran interviews with them to learn more about what they know, then those sources are just brief mentions? Two, no, the article in question isn't even about him, and doesn't cover him in depth. - It's another interview -- a story via his research. There are two large images in the piece, and both are of Scarlatoiu. When a newspaper/magazine finds someone important enough (via their knowledge/research or otherwise) to run an interview with them, that's not a brief mention. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the "argument from photographs" (now invoked for the second time) laughable, though I must applaud its originality - never seen in before.
- And again, the fact that a man who's lived in DC for years can garner no non-trivial coverage in the Post, The Hill, Roll Call or Politico, not to mention (even if not everyone considers it a real newspaper) The Washington Times (which happens to be linked to the fervently anti-communist, South Korea-based Unification Church), but that instead we need to go all the way to Argentina (a country to which he has no discernible ties) to find barely-more-than-trivial coverage, classifies this as a case of special pleading. By any normal standards, in-depth coverage of the subject is non-existent. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:57, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- still irrelevant per wikipedia norms, nothing has changed. Dahn (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A person does not get over Wikipedia's inclusion and notability rules by giving soundbite in articles about other things, nor even by giving a lot of soundbite in a lot of articles about a lot of other things — a person gets over Wikipedia's inclusion and notability rules by being the subject of enough media coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. But little to no sourcing which satisfies that latter standard has been shown here; it's all glancing namechecks of his existence as the giver of soundbite in articles whose subjects are other things, and that's not how a person clears the bar. His name can be mentioned in the article on the organization he's affiliated with, sure — but none of this satisfies GNG to the degree needed to earn standalone BLP separate from being mentioned in the organization's article. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. He is quoted a lot. That's not sufficient to earn him his own article. However, he is executive director of an organization which passes the notability bar. He is covered (to an apparently appropriate depth) in that article. And his name, because he is quoted frequently in the press, is a plausible search term. I cannot discern any reason why we would opt for literal deletion rather than a redirect to the article which suits our readers' inquiries in a policy-compliant manner. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A delete vote is not inherently incompatible with a redirect — there is no rule that if an AFD closes as "delete" then the title has to permanently remain a redlink and can never be recreated as a redirect to a related article, but rather a redirect can be created from the redlink in exactly the same manner as any other plausible search term. But in a case like this, we need to delete the article and then create a redirect if that's desired, because there's no value in maintaining the edit history behind the redirect. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per WP:BIO1E, no evidence of notability independent from U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Committee for Human Rights in North Korea; the subject does not appear to be independently notable per available sources. At this time, this is a vanity page and a resume in the form of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 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 speedy deleted G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 17:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua D Niles[edit]

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

Autobiography that does not meet notability guidelines for WP:BIO or WP:NMUSIC. Drm310 (talk) 19:14, 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 redirect to Miss Georgia USA. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edlyn Lewis[edit]

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

Three are 3 sources in the article, none of which are anywhere near reliable, indepdent, third party sources giving substantial coverage. The first is said to be a listing of previous winners of Miss Fulton County. Even if it is more than just a directory as a winner of that title I do not think it can be considered fully indepdent of her. The other two are an article from the Georgia Tech alumni magazine and an article from the Georgia Tech student newspaper. Neither of these is indepdent enough to be worth considering. Georgia Tech has an interest in boosting the reputation of its students, this is just boosterism. While the claim she was the first African-American Miss Georgia USA might seem notable, I think we would need coverage to show that people actually felt this was significant to justify playing it up. Venessa Williams becoming the first African-American Miss America in 1983 seems to have gained attention, it is not clear that Lewis being the first African-American Miss Georgia USA in a competition held in 1997 was at all noted, and even less evidence it has continued to be noted. Futher searches on Lewis bring up less stuff than usual. A Linkedin account that seems to say very little about her (not a reliable source anyway), and an IMDb link that may or may not be for her, but is for someone doing additional production assitance on a TV show, not the stuff of notability. The google-newspapers search gives up the likes of a Spartanburg South Carolina paper with a caption only photo with Lewis and several other Miss USA contestants huddling behind towels.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on mobile, so my formatting may be terrible, but let me see if I can put forward some thoughts. I'd want to consider that any press coverage from the time might not be online. I used Georgia Tech sources because I went there and I'm familiar with them; I'd be surprised if there weren't more somewhere. I think it's improper to assume that the Technique is boosterism, it's always had independent editorial control... critiquing it for covering Georgia Tech topics is like critiquing the Atlanta Journal Constitution for covering Atlanta news. Also, I assumed that *any* winner of the Miss Georgia USA would be notable, and that articles about those winners would help combat our systemic bias against articles about women. Being the first African-American winner in a state that is traditionally fairly racist is a big accomplishment. Disavian (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The clear consensus of the recent discussions is that just being Miss whatever state USA does not make someone default notable, although exactly what that means is hard to say.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: Not notable per WP:GNG that states "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Arguing combating systemic bias by just creating articles on any girl or woman, that then would surely include the Naked news anchors, is not real great. Arguing inclusion by following current practices according to WP:policies and guidelines is more practical. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, along with reliable sources, would still apply, especially with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Otr500 (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should also be noted that Wikipedia does not have the purpose of righting perceived wrongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First African-American state winner from a Deep South state is a big deal. Groundbreaking. Computer science and an MBA to boot, GNG is there. Early Google period so will be hard to find a lot of sources, but this one meets WP:BASIC to me. Montanabw^(talk) 22:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. College newspapers are never reliable sources for notability. We will combat systematic bias better by additng articles about those women who are actually notable . DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails more than one section of WP:Notability. Miss Fulton County doesn't count towards notability nor does being a competitor in the Miss USA 1998 pageant in which she was listed as a non-finalist. This leaves the one win of Miss Georgia USA 1998 and per WP:BIO1E is one event which does not establish notability. Also, in my opinion, these "mini BLP's" should be speedy deleted when they are created in violation of "Biographies of living persons. Otr500 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Georgia USA. Like most winners of this event, there's simply no grounds to support an independent biographical article. If there's a reliable source for her being the first African American winner of this state pageant, it can (and should) be included (with citation) in the "Notes" field of the table therein, but there's simply no grounds to break out this sort of minimal capsule biography into its own article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and lack of RS. A redirect is unnecessary, IMO, since the name is unlikely to have become a valid search term. If the closer's determination is to redirect, I'd recommend Delete & Redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Georgia USA This is a WP:BIO1E and definitely not independently notable for an article on its own. But I guess a redirect here is fine as the subject is mentioned on the target page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:37, 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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Foulke Morrisson[edit]

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

No evidence for notability. Sourced just to a newspaper obit and a college archive. President of a State League of Women Voters or any other State branch of a national association is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see what seems to be significant coverage in numerous books at the google books link. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The two newspaper obituaries, one by a news service of national scope, are both significant coverage as is the National Cyclopedia of American Biography entry. Cumulatively, the sources satisfy WP:BASIC. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A leader of the suffrage movement is surely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 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. COnsensus is clear on the quality of sources and the applicability —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahbans[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~If not independently notable, merge to List of Rajput clans of Uttar Pradesh.~~ Below are some sources found. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Handbook on Rajputs
The Calcutta Law Reports of Cases Decided by the High Court, Calcutta
Gazetteer of the Province of Oudh
The Report on the Census of Oudh, Volume 1
District Gazetteers of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh: Sitapur

Delete - the "list of clans" articles are gradually being pruned to those that meet WP:V and the spirit of WP:NLIST. Clan names often exist in more than one caste grouping and in more than one location, so accurate redirecting is impossible. Source checks suggest that this particular community does not appear to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources listed by Northamerica1000 are unreliable ones from the British Raj era - I'm actually getting a bit fed up of repeating this point to people who frequent AfD but the consensus is solid and has been for years. They almost always rely on methodology used in the census enumerations and on scientific racism, for which see Census of India prior to independence. - Sitush (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All of the sources linked above are from the Raj era (the first being a reprint of a book first published in 1899) and such sources are notoriously unreliable in this topic area, being based on racism as explained by Sitush. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck part of my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 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 no consensus. The only thing that's clear from this discussion is that this title shouldn't be deleted. Maybe the article needs to be rewritten. Maybe it should be redirected or merged to one of several plausible targets mentioned here. But, that conversation can continue on Talk:Static relay, and whatever consensus emerges from there can be carried out without the need for further AfD involvement. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Static relay[edit]

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

"Static relay" is not a term I'm familiar with and the only very minor sources I can find for it give it as an old and obsolete synonym for solid state relay, which we already have an article on. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to solid state relay. The Google Books search linked above shows that the sources using this name are not all minor (here's a book on the subject that uses it in the title) and it is not an old and obsolete synonym (here's a book published this year that uses it). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't get any clearer. Is this simply an old synonym for the device we now call a solid state relay? Or is it at all distinct? The 1961 book doesn't help much as it's not visible through Google. The 2016 book has, "the majority of static relays have attracted armature output elements to provide metal-to-metal contacts" which is clearly not what we mean by an SSR. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect Staszek Lem (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Relay#Static relay, where it is mentioned. Static relays are those that have no moving parts, i.e., they are static. This was an early 60's name for them, to be contrasted with electromagnetic dynamic relays. Static relays come in several types: solid state (typically this means an analog circuit), digital (Digital protective relay) or numerical (microprocessor-based A to D sampling, also at Digital protective relay). I don't know if there is a lot of info out there discussing static relays as a group, but the term exists and is a plausible search term. Hence a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you have come up with the goods and found the right redirect target. My suggestion of a redirect above was based on the nominator's statement that this was a synonym for solid state relay, and was intended as a "don't delete" opinion rather than an indication of the best redirect target. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But your book ref (above) describes them as if they do have moving parts, but use active electronics driving this to control timing etc. (no, I don't understand the name). If they have no moving parts, then they're an old term for SSRs and should redirect there. But are they something distinct instead? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I thought I had made clear, my only thought here is that this should not be deleted. Where, or whether, the title should be redirected is something that can be decided at the article talk page or by bold action without an admin having to press the "delete" button, so, as far as this discussion is concerned, the only important thing is that this should not be deleted. You are talking about a content issue that is no part of the business of AfD. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate issue, can you make any sense of the current content for this article? I can barely understand a word of it, so I wouldn't miss any of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have rewritten the article based on chapters from a couple of books. It is still a very basic stub, but may have useful material for merging. --Mark viking (talk) 11:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know what one is yet? How does it differ from a solid-state relay? (If not, then merge)

Do they have moving parts? "the majority of static relays have attracted armature output elements to provide metal-to-metal contacts" (above) means that they do have moving parts. Or was that just because 1961 pre-dates power semiconductors and they had to? In which case, why are they called "static" relays? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New comments after rewrite? Sandstein 19:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Open an RfC/Don't Delete - This should probably be a redirect, but there is confusion as to where the redirection should go. I suggest that this AfD be closed as "don't delete" and then either create an RfC, or otherwise put up a call for experts at the relevant wikiproject in order to figure out where this should redirect to, or whether this is a valid place for a standalone article. In any of those outcomes however, this article should not be deleted, so "don't delete". I think we have consensus for this. Fieari (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should WP have an article when it is clear that WP (as a group of editors, myself included) are not knowledgeable enough to write that article? We simply don't know what this thing is, so how can we write about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a notable subject, there are numerous relevant hits on gbooks. This book, for instance, describes them in great detail. I suspect that the term is now archaic, the book I linked was published in 1977, and this more recent book hints at that without actually saying so. There are many books that discuss static relays as if it were a current term, but these are mostly English language Indian publishers. I have found such books to frequently be out of date as they have a tendency to copy and recopy from other sources (they are great as sources on obsolete equipment and techniques, which I frequently write articles on, but that's another story). Nevertheless, even if completely historic, the subject remains notable and encyclopaedic.

Not strictly relevant to AfD, but I'll make an attempt at clearing up some of the confusion in this discussion. Static relays have sensing and signal processing circuitry which has no moving parts and may be much more complex than the classic voltage operated relay. They may, or may not, have mechanically closing output contacts. If the output contacts are not mechanical then they are called fully static relays. The solid-state relay is the most widely known example of this, but not the only one. The early static relays composed of discrete transistors and other components, while technically solid state, is not what engineers would normally mean by an SSL, they mean a solid-state device built as a monolithic block. SpinningSpark 15:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Those who know what it is, don't need the Wikipedia article. Those who don't know, would only be baffled by the Wikiality. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a piss poor reason to delete. SpinningSpark 14:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speculation: 1. I think I recall that there used to be tube type thyristors used for switching. Perhaps that would be a static relay that wasn’t a solid state relay? 2. From the IEEE dictionary: “Static Relay. A relay or relay unit in which the designed response is developed by electronic, solid state, magnetic or other components without mechanical motion. Note A relay switch is composed of both static and electromechanical units in which the designed response is accomplished by the static units may be referred to as a static relay.” That sounds to me like the armature metal to metal contact might be an electromechanical relay in parallel with the static unit so that the static unit does the switching and the electromechanical then takes over after a few cycles.Constant314 (talk) 08:20, 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. Technical close as non-consenssus, to permit rapid renomination of those articles which,after an adequate search in appropriate sources, cannot be shown to have adequate sourcing for notability. Perhaps a combination article is the solution here? DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fazenda da Bica[edit]

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

I am just not seeing notability for this "not officially recognized" region of Rio de Janeiro. This article is completely unsourced. It has a companion article in the Portugese Wikipedia, but only Portuguese. The Portuguese article is not much more extensive than the English article, and all of the links it relies on for references give me 404 errors. There are some external links in the Portuguese version that lead to news articles about a flood in 2009, and these articles do reference this region by way of letting people know where the flood occurred, but are not really useful for describing, discussing, or demonstrating notability of the region. My own searches have turned up another article about someone dying after a farm collapsed in the area, an ad for a farm by that name which sells eggs and poultry, and not a whole lot else.

Template:Rio de Janeiro city neighbourhoods lists a great many "not officially recognized" neighborhoods, many of which (but not all of which) are in similar condition. However, the article on Rio de Janeiro does not discuss these areas or their importance to the life and culture of the city at all. If someone had sources and wanted to craft a section in the article on Rio about unoffical neighborhoods, their history and importance, I think the best idea would be to redirect all of these to that section. But right now there is nothing in the article on Rio about these neighborhoods.

I am also nominating the following "not officially recognized" neighborhoods in Rio for similar reasons (most of these even lack Portuguese articles):

:Castelo, Rio de Janeiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this one may have more promise; there's a mention in both en and pt of it being something of a hub for art deco architecture, and when I google it there is some discussion of its architecture, but nothing that I would consider a WP:RS - though I did find at least one book in Portuguese on Google books that someone with familiarity with that language should probably look at before this nom is closed.)

Fazenda Botafogo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (the reference in the Portuguese article is a 404 error) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink the nomination. There is no way that we can have a reasonable discussion about all of these together. They do not all necessarily stand or fall together, so the only thing that can happen with such a single discussion is for different editors to give "keep" or "delete" opinions about different combinations of these districts. I would urge the nominator to close this discussion and nominate a few of these articles separately, and after those discussions are finished to nominate a few more and so on. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that I only nominated 32 out of 37 of these neighborhoods. I found enough indications of notability for the remaining 5 that I did not include them in this group nom. Also, as I noted above, Castelo, Rio de Janeiro maybe actually should be considered separately. Again, as I noted in my nomination, the ideal solution is for someone to craft a section in the article on Rio discussing the concept of unofficial neighborhoods kind of generally, and redirect these there. But someone has to be able to craft that section first and I'm not even finding sufficient sources for that. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Perhaps someone can make some sense of this. The translated version is sort of gobbledygook, but it looks like it's talking about the creation of the official administrative divisions of Rio in the 80s, and may discuss what neighborhoods were in place before that. However, it doesn't really appear to discuss any(?) of these neighborhoods as such (though a couple of them appear to take the names given in WP from streets that are mentioned in that document:Rio das Pedras, Rio Grande, and Mato Alto). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you can't expect editors commenting here to do the necessary work of checking each of those 32 for notability. If you persist with this approach then this is bound to end in a trainwreck with no consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MULTIAFD indicates AFDs should be bundled when they are, "A group of articles with identical content but with slightly different titles." All 32 of these, with the exception of Castelo, Rio de Janeiro (which I'm going to strike from this multi AFD simply because it doesn't fit the pattern), consist solely of "X is a region of Rio de Janeiro, but not officially recognized as a neighborhood." (ok - 2 have an additional sentence; Bairro Peixoto also notes that it's officially part of Copacabana, "but has distinct characteristics", and Buraco do Padre has 2 pictures and notes that "Next big city is Ponta Grossa.") All but 4 of them were created by Ivens Portugal on October 19, 2013. That user has not been active since November, 2013. This is a group of articles with identical content but different titles, identical sourcing issues, and it makes sense to discuss them as a group - at least to start. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. I've looked at the first four of these and with trivial effort have found sources for them. I'm buggered if I'm going to look at all 32 of them when it's clear that the nominator has made no effort to check whether these articles meet WP:GEOLAND. If any of them don't then they can be nominated separately on their own merits. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're caught up on how many of them there are, and I'm sorry about that. WP:GEOLAND has the following to say about unofficial neighborhoods:

Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include . . . unofficial neighborhoods – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.

(underlining mine)

In order to demonstrate notability, sources have to be non-trivial coverage, and there have to be multiple sources. Taking Fonte da Saudade, for example, I mentioned in the nomination statement that I was able to locate news articles about a flood and a building collapse that mentioned they occurred in Fonte da Saudade, but were not about Fonte da Saudade. They demonstrate that the place exists and is known by that name, but not that it is notable and they provide no materials for us to build an article about it. Now you come along and say that with "trivial effort" you have been able to find "sources" for them. You made no addition to the article, which still read exactly as it did when I nominated it, but you did plunk down a news article discussing some buildings which were at risk of being demolished, and residents being afraid that new buildings would replace them that would ruin the view of a building by renowned Brazilian architect Oscar Niemeyer. The article notes that said building is not on the National Institute of Historic and Artistic Heritage. This article did allow me to get a better idea of where exactly Fonte da Saudade is, meaning I now have a better idea of where it should be redirected, should this AFD close that way, but it doesn't consist of non-trivial coverage sufficient to build an article about Fonte da Saudade. The article isn't about Fonte da Saudade. Even if it was, it's still only one article, not the multiple articles required by WP:GEOLAND (although if it is considered non-trivial coverage - which it isn't, the ones I found before about the flood and the building collapse would make for multiple).

Moving on to the one you plopped down for Fazenda da Bica, it is even less useful and significant than the one for Fonte da Saudade. It's about people returning to their homes after a mudslide to pick up their buildings. It doesn't even indicate what part of Rio this neighborhood is in.

Horto is an interesting case. The source you found actually described some of the history of the community, and because of the eviction dispute I was able to find quite a few more sources. This should definitely not be deleted, but comparing what we've now found with the state of the article on Jardim Botânico, Rio de Janeiro, the officially recognized neighborhood to which it belongs, I can't help but think that both articles would be improved by placing this information in that article, as WP:GEOLAND indicates should be done.

Unfortunately, I need to leave now, and probably won't be able to look at this much until sometime late tomorrow. I haven't been able to look at the source you found for the fourth article you looked for sources for. I'll revisit this when I get a chance. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are still missing the point here, which is that these articles don't stand or fall together. Some may have loads of coverage in reliable sources and some may have little, as you have found, so they certainly do not have identical sourcing issues as you claim, because notability depends on the existence of sources rather than their citation in the current articles. And the "legal recognition" issue needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. The articles that I have looked at appear to be mostly about favelas, which, pretty much by definition, are not legally recognised but also not part of the legally recognised areas around them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 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) 05:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Karoll[edit]

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

I think this is a hoax. Pro-Football reference shows no evidence of a player of that name playing for the Dolphins or any other team, and the player in the photo appears to be Ryan Tannehill. Smartyllama (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Page creator has since edited page to reflect apparent reality that Karoll is an associate producer of an XM Radio show and was a producer for his campus radio station as well. The Tannehill photo has also been removed. Still fails WP:GNG IMO, but it's not a hoax anymore. Smartyllama (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. The image is Ryan tannehill 2015.jpg. (Or maybe Tannehill is preparing for life after football ...) Clarityfiend (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "one of the greatest announcers in WMUA Sports History". That's about as strong a distinction as "one of the best Cleveland Browns quarterbacks of the new millennium". (My condolences, Browns fans.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page creator has since edited the page to say Karoll produces a show on XM Satellite radio. There's still no evidence of notability IMO, but he exists, apparently. Smartyllama (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ignoring the weirdly hoax-y origins of this page entirely, associate producer of a program on XM Radio isn't sufficient to clear the notability bar, nor was his tenure at WMUA (which is a student-run college radio station). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sahabat Pegadaian[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Apparently has some coverage, but not sufficient for notability. Smartyllama (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I honestly consider this speedy material if not for the barebon thin claims of "government owned" as there's nothing but simple information about what the business is, not whether there's actual substance, which of course is needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 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 speedy deleted A7, G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) shoy (reactions) 17:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xorcom[edit]

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

Fails wp:gng and fails wp:corp. No sources cited for anything in said article. Sole contributor of Article works directly for Xorcom as well which adds a biased slant to the Article. Graphitedude (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced article, and all that my searches are finding is routine announcements and passing mention. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:56, 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) 05:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yumbles.com[edit]

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

Website fails notability requirements laid out at WP:WEBCRIT/WP:GNG: It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial independently published works, nor won a well-known and independent award. There are a few news story that mention the site, but only in passing when discussing a product listed there. Brianhe (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its an online marketplace for "indie food". There is no significant coverage of this company/webpage in reliable independent sources anywhere. The few mentions of this marketplace are usually about products or traders which sell on the platform, but not about the platform itself, which is only mentioned in passing. Most of those sources are only non-reliable blogs too. There are 2 small news about this company on the Telegraph, but its only a trivial mentioning about them seeking funds. Notability is therefore not established. The article/subject fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:WEB and WP:NCORP in all points. Dead Mary (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTPROMO. MSJapan (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing at all comes for the substance needed for a notable article; this simply shows what there is to tell us about the company, not what substantial sources and information are convincing. There's essentially nothing else from this minimally formed article. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Euclidthalis/Archive - David Gerard (talk) 12:42, 29 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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heber Robert McBride[edit]

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

no actual evidence of notability,mentioned in works on the period, but never a leader. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We discussed Heber Robert McBride's notability on the DYK nomination. His notability is based on his journal, which is often cited as a historical record of the Martin Handcart company. Under WP:ANYBIO his journals are " a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason that McBride is notable is that he kept an accurate journal of his pioneering journey. This journal has been cited regularly by sources looking into the settlement of Utah, and therefore McBride is covered by numerous reliable sources. That's WP:GNG right there, he's notable. Keep Worm^TT(talk) 21:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His journal have been quoted in several sources. Hber McBride is notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article by Hedges suggests that McBride was a significant force in the Ogden Valley in the late 19th-century. Beyond this, the level his journal gets quoted shows he is historically significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 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) 05:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Eisenberg[edit]

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

This article was nominated 8 years ago for lack of notability. At that time, the article was kept largely, it appears, because of problems regarding the nominator. Past nomination problems aside, the subject doesn't meet WP:NBIO. The articles cited are not primarily about her, and I can't find anything new in the last 8 years beyond passing mentions ([3], [4], and [5] for example). agtx 17:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources in the article only quote or mention Eisenberg rather than write about her, and I too have been unable to find any better sources online, and, for a notable New Yorker active in the last 20 years, I would expect sources to be available online. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When the NYT is covering real estate developments in Brooklyn as is the case in the cited article it is a local newspaper doing local reporting. This is not enough to turn a small scale real estate developer into a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and this is actually speedy material, simply having known news sources is not a basis at all for actual notability, since none of it is in fact convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 29 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 only claim to notability does not offer any specifics. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Huston[edit]

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

WP:COI editor with loads of peacock and promotional languange. No indication of notable. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment he sounds like he may well be notable, but that REFBOMBing ... does anyone feel up to extracting the actual RSes? - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After one click on Google books, I can't say that those Todd Huston's are the one in the article, but I can state that the nomination's assertion that there is "no indication of notable" can be falsified. Unscintillating (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That comment doesn't seem to make sense - you can't put forward a claim that there might be hypothetical sources to swing keeping a BLP, it needs the RSes right there - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If those are not Todd Huston WP:RS, then why did the nomination not mention that fact in the nomination? For that matter, where is the report of the other WP:BEFORE D1 searches? Is this a special case that doesn't need WP:BEFORE D1? Is so, why? Unscintillating (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That comment doesn't make sense either. Look, a BLP needs the solid references right there in the article - even a BLP of an apparently-notable article can't be allowed to exist without them (read WP:BLP). If you want to convince others of his notability, please list the RSes you consider constitute evidence of notability - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you claiming that it is my job to do WP:BEFORE D1? Show me where that is what WP:BEFORE says. Unscintillating (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean, you don't have to supply anything to back your claim of notability. Right now you're claiming that convincing sources exist and doing anything other than saying what they are. Feel free to keep doing that, and we'll feel free to keep thinking this is a "delete" - David Gerard (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No, your statement is not accurately reflecting what I have said. Unscintillating (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Unscintillating, your own statements are not accurately reflecting what you have said - "aye, there's the rub;" (The Bard) Steve Quinn (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the lack of evidence for notability proffered so far, quite apart from this being part of a blatant spam cluster - David Gerard (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete puffy article on a non-notable mountain climber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also concur, this was deleted in 2010 as G12, and although I know for sure I've seen this elsewhere as an article, I'm not entirely sure; regardless, the entire article is beyond improvable as an advertisement, advertising every career information particle to the max certainly. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a WP:DEL14 argument? Unscintillating (talk) 09:46, 29 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) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goldfish (Short film)[edit]

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

COmpletely unsourced article. Nothing notable about the movie. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Wein. The article is unsorced, but claims multiple awards, so I went looking. Helpfully, the poster provided in the infobox did my work for me. Most of these "awards" are "official selection"--that is, the film was chosen to compete, but did not actually win. Three are not. The 2007 Austin Film Festival award is the "Audience Award", rather than one of the AFF's jury-awarded categories; I don't believe this is sufficient to weigh towards notability under our current film standards. Likewise, Gen Art awarded the film its "Grand Jury Award" in 2008, but (unhelpfully) that was actually the second place award that year (the winner was, creatively enough, "Winner"). Finally, the Savannah Film Festival did award it Best Comedic Short in 2008, but that festival (held by the Savannah College of Art and Design) isn't sufficiently notable in and of itself for its awards to carry much weight. None of this would be a problem if Goldfish had received independent press coverage and reviews, but, like most short films, that doesn't seem to be the case. The best we get is this brief mention at an Ain't It Cool News article about that year's Tribeca Film Festival. The film thus lacking sufficient notability, the reasonable outcome is a redirect to its director's article, where, in fact, it is already covered in (at least) sufficient length (and that AICN article already cited). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Squeamish Ossifrage: I PRODed Joe Wein yesterday and frankly it's AFD material - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed to delete. You're exactly right. I'd glanced at the Wein article, and been tentatively hopeful that the couple of legitimate-looking references were a sign that it needed improvement, rather than a sign that the article was refbombed to disguise a lack of substantive coverage. But that's very much not the case. Accordingly, there's no valid redirect target, so deletion is the only outcome here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete - Joe Wein's notability is also rather questionable. This appears to be part of a cluster of REFBOMBed ill-sourced articles on barely-notable people or products - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications that it meets WP:NFILM. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe being a part of these festivals or other events without winning them, or winning something substantial related to them, truly makes the film notable. Most short pieces that film-makers create don't get enough significant notice to merit having a Wikipedia page, and I believe that this is no exception. I'd also like to note that this article here is called Goldfish (Short film) in contrast with Goldfish (short film) (without the capitalization); the latter is just a redirect and should likely get deleted as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article had multiple RS exist and these were removed/deleted by Zackmann08, so now the article appears to be unsourced. InfoDataMonger (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What specific RS links are you talking about? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@InfoDataMonger: I'm with CoffeeWithMarkets here... Exactly what WP:RS are you talking about?? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:09, 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. And move as requested. Sandstein 11:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thiara[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it is notable. Thiara (gastropod) should be moved to this page. Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with Thiara (gastropod) per nom. I did a little looking around, and it appears that Thiara is basically a last name from India... which is what the article means by "clan". Just a family name, with no other real notability about it. Wikipedia isn't really a geneology site. If individuals with this last name become notable (or are notable), a disambiguation page might be warranted, but lacking the need, I think the primary meaning of "a type of snail" should be the main page. Incidentally, WP:RM would have been a better place for this, not AfD. Or even the talk page. No deletion is actually being requested here.

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:46, 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. Sandstein 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gandas[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: There are some hits on web but they do not appear to refer this clan. Anup [Talk] 02:30, 29 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 03:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sohal[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE. Deleted in 2008 AfD. Boleyn (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and turn into a surname article as there are enough eligible entries to meet WP:APONOTE. Uanfala (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Uanfala (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert per Uanfala. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert per above. Anup [Talk] 02:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jasrotia[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep: Meets WP:GNG. I have expanded the article a little and added few references; there are however much more available on Gbooks and JSTOR that anyone interested can make use of for further expansion. Anup [Talk] 01:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is another obvious keep that makes me question whether Boleyn did a WP:BEFORE in their recent spree of caste-related nominations. As Anupmehra says, there are plenty of sources out there. Most of them relate to the minor royalty that was at the heart of the community from ca 12C to 19C and might ultimately be covered better by a merge to or from Jasrota (which I am presently expanding) but a deletion is inappropriate and any merge proposal can be dealt with when the expansion is complete. - Sitush (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely keep. Meet notability guidelines. Article needs a lot of work, but no grounds to delete it. Will be good addition to wikipedia once article is further developed. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:36, 29 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 18:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayrania[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: Tried Google books & news, WP:INDAFD search engines, and JSTOR. Nothing helpful turned up. To find sources on these topics, one needs access to a real physical library and at least a day and half-a-dozen cup of coffee. Anup [Talk] 00:15, 29 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 03:32, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Idiga[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep I have spent 30 minutes or so expanding the article and there is much more out there. This is an easy keep and I'm seriously concerned about WP:BEFORE, given the number of rapid-fire nominations of caste articles that have gone on - too many for me to research in the time available. - Sitush (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep after Sitush's improvements. Bishonen | talk 14:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: notability seems to have been established. Anup [Talk] 23:54, 28 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 18:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pangli[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that they are WP:NOTABLE. Pangli, Burma should be moved here if page is deleted. Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: It exists but didn't see anything substantial that would help subject meet the WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 23:44, 28 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 18:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ishigaq[edit]

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

This article had only one source, a self-published book at vanity press lulu.com. I can't see any obvious candidates to serve as sources in its place. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V but without prejudice to recreation if a source shows up. This page has been on Wikipedia for a very long time (predates me, which says something), so many web references to this term are to this article. I tried fairly hard to find a non-Wikipedia based source for this term and failed. I did find plenty of references to "little people" in Yup'ik and Inuit mythology, but none by the name given in this article. That said, I worry about WP:SYSTEMIC, and this is an area that's particularly susceptible to that problem, considering that much of the knowledge in this area is likely oral tradition. I don't have a good solution for that problem. agtx 06:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Merl[edit]

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

Delete: utterly non-notable as athlete. Quis separabit? 15:07, September 22, 2016 (UTC)

Delete: non-notable WP:ATHLETE. Best finish was 5th at Europeans, never reached finals at any world events. Safehaven86 (talk) 19:06, September 22, 2016 (UTC) Keep: Athlete actually appears to meet WP:NTRACK #2. My mistake! Safehaven86 (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE #5 and ~~probably~~ #3 (Europacup 2005,2006) Agathoclea (talk) 09:04, September 23, 2016 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NTRACK and WP:GNG. Article could use cleanup, expansion and improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she appears to meet the WP:NTRACK requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per NTRACK. Montanabw^(talk) 05:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:25, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IWRG Máscara vs. Máscara (September 2016)[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS: "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " This article has only a few sources about this very recent event, either announcing it or giving a summary immediately afterwards. This is the same that happens for e.g. all soccer games in the English third division Football League One (which often get more spectators than this event). Now compare the number of news reports you get for one game from last week, Bolton Wanderers vs. Southend United. [6]. An article on this or any similar game would be swiftly deleted. IWRG organises many events (at least 6 in August and a similar number in September) with often the same competitors and the same titles (there was e.g. another "Mascara vs. Mascara" from IWRG in August 2016). No reason to believe at the moment that this event will have the enduring notability required by WP:NOTNEWS. Fram (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - So for starters since this article has significant coverage in reliable third party sources, let's get that out of the way first of all. The dismissal of coverage of the show by sports or pro wrestling news outlet as "routine" is tantamount to stating that "USA Today has routine coverage of the news" and "Sports Illustrated provides routine coverage of sports". Nominator makes it sound like this is just another weekly show for IWRG - Even though he is aware that the show has been referred to the main event as "The biggest Apuesta match in years", so it was not just "another show". Dismissing this as "no enduring notability"? (crystalball'in?) is a matter of the nominator's ignorance of the subject, so I am not holding that against him. In lucha libre a mask loss is often a significant point in a wrestler's career, good or bad - everything he does afterwards is affected by it, his career is changed. Is the career of "Jimmy Scouser" paying for "the Worthingtonchestershire Pintglass stackers" changed in any significant way if their team loses "a match"? probably not, right? For the guy that has to unmask, big time difference normally - which is why that is not a good comparison. Also this article is not just about the show, it's about the context, the build up, the aftermath (only happened 10 days ago, not a lot of time for "aftermath" yet but I actually have something to add), all of which, by the way, is fully sourced by reliable third party sources. The article is showing a wider perspective than just the show results, it actually covers events going back several months means that it already had "enduring notability" before the match even happened. (sorry to write a book but context matters if people are to make an informed decision on this) MPJ-DK 20:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I cannot forget to give Fram a hearthy thank you for listing Lucha Libre as a sport, *High Five*. MPJ-DK 20:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a sport, it's entertainment, but it's entertainment in the form of a sport. But if you want, I can change the comparison to a football game to a comparison to a pop concert. These get announced, and get reviews the day or week after they happened. But they don't get articles here (normally, some very famous concerts of course do have articles) because of NOTNEWS. Now, you are claiming that this will be an event with lasting notability (which is crystalballing), I say that we don't have any evidence for that yet (which is not crystalballing but plain fact). The article has lots of content about events prior to this one, but these don't give any notability to this event. Your claim that "it already had "enduring notability" before the match even happened" is pure nonsense. It is just one in a string of scripted events, witnessed by a few thousand people live and written about in very few sources. Does the match have an impact on the career of the wrestlers. Probably, just like a good match may have an impact on the career of sporters or a good concert may have an impact on the career of musicians (e.g. leading to an invitation to a bigger festival afterwards). Does that make that match or concert notable? In most cases not. For Wikipedia, the only thing that makes an event notable are reliable, independent sources that go beyond the routine coverage that may be expected for such an event. No such sources are available here. Fram (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright now that we've gotten past the fact that lucha libre is NOT actually a competitive sport (as all wrestling fans freely admit) let's examine it and see what is a good comparison. Welcome to the "Lucha Libre Educational Program^TM, I am your host Professor Emeritus MPJ. So what can we compare Lucha Libre (or pro wrestling in general) to? Well it's entertainment with scripts and in this case yes it is televised (IWRG showed it as part of their weekly show, it was not mentioned in the article yet because they occasionally get pre-empted for live sporting events.) But yes it was broadcast on TV. As for your comparison to "a concert", that to me feels off too - wrestling shows tell stories, over several events which are all different - it's not like they perform the same set list in Seattle and then Cleveland etc. Each performance is significantly different than the last and for the storylines that are being started, continued or ended on these shows - rather more like a TV show than a concert.

In my mind Lucha Libre is more akin to TV shows than anything else in entertainment, it is probably the closes approximation I can find if we want to discuss wrestling in the context of other things. So as a comparison, this is what I will go with here. For TV shows we have "list of episodes" and "List of Seasons" type articles. For wrestling we the same sort of summary style articles for a specific recurring show (say the Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre Anniversary Shows) or perhaps List of IWRG shows, that has an overview of all events or "Episodes" (with reliable sources natch). These don't give you a great deal of information on individual "Episodes" but more of a high level summary various information.
So in essence this article for Deletion is comparable to an article on a specific episode of a show, one where I felt there was enough sources to support writing a standalone "Episode" article
I have seen you dismiss this as a "run-of-the-mill" generic wrestling show - and hey normally I would accept that at face value since you're not familiar with the ins and outs of Lucha Libre - but considering the DYK hook you pulled was cited to a claim that it was the "most significant Lucha de Apuestas match for IWRG in years I have a hard time believing the dismissal as "run-of-the-mill" is entirely based on ignorance of the subject. This show was the culmination of a long running storyline, dating back to the early parts of 2016 (let's say 5 months to not quibble over it) and quoted as "the most significant" in years - I think we probably put this in the "Season Final" type of category (so like Grave Danger) instead of a regular episode during the season (like Fur and Loathing)
And allow me to pontificate on the "Lucha de Apuestas" concept. While most professional wrestling considers the championships as "the highest accolade" (Their version of winning an award I suppose) in Mexico the "Apuesta" match - especially mask vs. mask - is considered the "ultimate" and normally is what draws the spectators and the ratings - Hardly "run-of-the-mill"
Enduring notability - With events going on over five months, reported on for five months before the show even happened I think that matches the most reasonable definition of "enduring" - perhaps you would like to share the timeframe you have for "enduring" since I'm thinking five months - plus fall out, follow up etc. fits nicely into that timeframe. So not "pure nonsense" since it came about as a results of five months worth of storylines that had been reported on enduringly before the bell even rung for the first match.

So at this point I have probably gone on for too long, but I believe an informed decision is the best kind of decision - "Now you know". MPJ-DK 20:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have the "final" (well, no, just a slightly more hyped "episode") of a season on a minor show. Comparing it to a TV series is giving it too much honour, one could better compare it to some web series with a few thousand subscribers and a few fanzine articles. At most, this would warrant an article for the series, not an article for an individual episode. WP:NOTNEWS applies to all articles, and you still haven't demonstrated anything beyond routine coverage. Fram (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, you are bolding the "five months" repeatedly as if that proves anything. Please show me any independent indepth coverage for this event going back five months. Or four. or three... You have written an article about an event, one evening with multiple fights, and try to claim that that event is notable because a feud, a storyline going on for months was the main element of the event. Notability of the storyline (if any) doesn't make the event notable. To compare it again with sports; there are many notable "rivalries" in sports, but that doesn't make any individual game in that rivalry notable, not even the slightly more important ones. Fram (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the sports comparison, warms my heart. Since it is on television the dismiss of that comparison seems to be more based on a personal preference than actual facts. And the article is not just about that one show but everything that has led to it. Again clearly in the article amd clearly being ignored because it does not fit your argument. Since you ignore whatever doesn't fit your argument I don't see a point in continuing this circular discussion. Don't get me wrong, I love talking Lucha but not stonewalls. MPJ-DK 11:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is on television? This event? Evidence please. And you are indeed using an article about one event as a WP:COATRACK to discuss something else. If the show hasn't received anything but routine coverage, it isn't notable, no matter how you try to spin it and how many sources not about this event the article has. Fram (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but what do you think? And I'm more of a jacket kinda guy, especially considering the following quote from the article "A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." None of that applies to this particular article, it provides context for the show. I guess Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is also a coat rack'in in the sections "Background", "Production", "Script publication" etc. right? MPJ-DK 00:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And just look at the Coatrack article Super Bowl 50. MPJ-DK 01:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because obviously in Super Bowl 50 everything in the "background" section happened before Super Bowl 50 was even announced, just like here. Right? Your comparisons get more and more ludicrous. You still haven't shown replied to "What is on television? This event? Evidence please.". Fram (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be an obvious double standard when it comes to non-WWE pro wrestling event articles, I was told at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash of Champions (2016) that the event was notable even though it had received no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources at that point. The contrary is true here, reliable secondary sources do prove notability in this case.LM2000 (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources for this event go beyond WP:NOTNEWS? (as I was not involved in that other deletion discussion, I have no interest in looking at what happened there. An error in another AfD shouldn't be a reason to keep this one as well). Fram (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This event is more comparable to professional wrestling pay-per-views than it is to concerts or weekly football games. I'm well aware one AfD from July is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I don't believe WWE Clash of Champions is as notable today as this event is and you wouldn't be able to get that, or any upcoming WWE PPV article deleted. Generally, if a WP:RS describes an upcoming event as having "The biggest Apuesta match in years" it will pass the WP:10 year test.LM2000 (talk) 07:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it is said to have claimed the biggest for this organisation (IWGR), not in general. And that this type of event is hyped before they happen is rather standard practice, it seems. Fram (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that other AfD after all. While I'm not convinced that it should have been kept (perhaps you should have used NOTNEWS as a rationale, making it more obvious that routine coverage isn't enough), it seems that we are comparing a small event (this IWRG m vs m evening), seen by a few thousand people and without any indication if it was even broadcast anywhere (the IWRG article states "Each year IWRG promotes a number of signature events, some shown on television and others only for the people in attendance."), with an event that will be broadcast live on WWE Raw, which is shown on TV worldwide. It's like comparing a first division match with a third division match (even if it is one of the more major third division matches), or a concert by a worldwide star with a concert by a nationally known band. Fram (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be well sourced in Spanish. I don't read Spanish, but the coverage appears to be wide and in depth, and with sources that are published under editorial review. I will accept the arguments of MPJ-DK above that this is a major event in the Luche Libre community, and Luche Libre is a notable subject as worthy of inclusion as many other niche topics that Wikipedia covers, such as "Pro-Wrestling" or pretty much any other fictional work. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "well-sourced" routine reviews, no coverage beyond what is required per WP:NOTNEWS though. And it is not a "major event in the Lucha Libre community", it is an event (hypod in one line in one announcement) from the third-rate lucha libre organiser only. The coverage of truly major events in LL is much, much bigger. 06:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs)
Keep - as per Fieari and LM2000. When listing this article for deletion, Fram failed to disclose that he did so at a time that the article was under extensive discussion at the DYK discussion page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your endless personal attacks get a bit boring, Cwmhiraeth (anyone interested can look at the "Vanity" section at the current WT:DYK page). There was no dispute by any serious person that the page was correctly pulled there. The deletion discussion is for unrelated reasons, as you should be well aware. You (like most others here) have not adressed the actual deletion reason though. How does this not violate NOTNEWS, with only routine coverage (announcement shortly before, and routine review immediately afterwards)? Fram (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for removing the personal attack.[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 06:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.188.136.234 (talk) 23:54, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Opting to simply redirect, per below. I don't see any salient content that needs to be added to the main article's section on this subsidiary, though of course reliable sources are needed overall. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kesoram Rayon[edit]

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

Part of a WP:Walled garden of Kesoram Industries Ltd.-related articles. The main article is also at Afd. I recommend a redirect and selective merge if that article is kept; outright deletion if not. This subsidiary is not independently notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a blocked sockpuppet account, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigtalkworld. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main article is notable. Merge to parent - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, and I don't want to string out what's obviously a promotional article from a sock. I'll withdraw this and redirect. There already is a suitable section there on the Rayon subsidiary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 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 speedy keep per SK1. No valid reason has been given for deletion, Essentially you could've avoided wasting everyones time by adding the outdated template to it. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

College football playoff debate[edit]

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

The article no longer reflects college footballs post season and has not been updated. Information on this page can be found on other related wiki articles and are up to date. Most of its information relies on opinion editorials Quickone (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Needs cleanup and updating, not deletion. The debate was indeed quite notable, and that notability means that the article should exist. That said, the articles need better coordination and structure. Firstly, there's no reason to have a separate Plus-One system article (alluded to by the nom), as that is part of the debate and a separate article is undue weight; that should totally be merged with the debate article as it is just one of the many aspects of the debate. And the debate article does need better coordination with the main article at College Football Playoff, making clearer that the debate was essentially the background to the current system. In other words, the debate article should serve as the main article on the background, and the background section at the main article should be just a brief summary that links via section hatnote to the debate article. oknazevad (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was notable once, it's notable now. Argument that it's no longer notable doesn't really work. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Notability is not based on whether something is current. Smartyllama (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're still talking about it,[8] if not as vociferously as before. Once notable, always notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as notability is not temporary, and anyway article is well referenced, showing that the subject meets WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Keep. Abraham Lincoln has been dead a long time but we won't delete his page either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. Definitely has historical value as part of the history of college football. Ejgreen77 (talk) 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miyuki Ichijō[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor whose had mostly supporting roles in anime series. Most notable role was as Martha in Maria the Virgin Witch, and Jodie in Case Closed. Not enough to develop any reasonable article so as it is, the article is an unsourced credits dump. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Subject is not notable enough to warrant her own article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Supercell (mobile network)[edit]

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

Non-notable local telecommunications company. SST flyer 12:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable stub. Promo piece that fails WP:Corp. Reads like a press release. Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not a press release, all sources are independent of the company. The source material is meager indeed. I can say that, after several very detailed internet search. The company operates in an area where for 20 years there is a civil war. In this context, it is quite relevant that there does not operate the remaining Congolese telephone companies, but one that is close to Rwanda. Without the economic relationships, particularly in the mobile phone sector, the First, second and Kivu conflict cannot been understood. These points should be added in the article, but I have not found any reliable sources yet. --Eruedin (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any reason to delete this stub. It is real company and it doesn't make any marketing claims. Why should it be deleted - no, it should be expanded. The problem for most African articles is that it is often difficult to source material. We should be patient. Comments about the First and Second Congo wars, as well as the Kivu conflict(s) are all relevant to emerging economies. This is an article which needs its context and should exist to provide information in a country in which truth is so often supressed and politicised. Keep, keep, keep! Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not quite sure how this could be mistaken for a press release, but is cited by a number of WP:RS. As a stub, it's perfectly average but also notable.—Brigade Piron (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fracis Hannaway. If this was an article about a mobile network operating in one US state, there would be no doubt about its notability. And there are reliable sources, the newspaper articles cited in the article. — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets notability guidelines. The area of the world may be remote, and the network relatively small, but it meets notability guidelines and supported by multiple WP:RS. Clearly it's a stub and needs a lot of work, but no reason to delete it - if it is kept it stands a chance of being further developed in time. Newtonslaw40 (talk) 15:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Neutral point of view requires more coverage of things around the world. Not less. My local phone company has its own article separate from that of its (notable) parent company; likewise, this telephone company should have its own article. 71.191.205.5 (talk) 19:22, 29 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, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lee-Davies[edit]

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

promo The Banner talk 12:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable at this point; nothing done or stated in the article rising to the level of GNG. More of a vanity/promotion piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity page of non-notable individual. Citobun (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable activist/filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shieldsquare[edit]

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

I find at most minimal coverage meeting WP:ORGDEPTH. Largoplazo (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable; not meeting WP:Corp; promo, company piece. Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no evidence of significance DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the company definitely exists but there is no claim of notability either within or outside of the article Spiderone 12:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP, Meets WP:SPAM. Anup [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 Speedy delete by Jimfbleak under G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (non-admin closure) Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YHOC[edit]

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

Scouting group, fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable at this point, even though I am sure this tiny band of 50 is worthwhile. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt, I have been all over this with the user, explaining why this is not an encyclopedic topic, they insist on forcing it into Nepal Scouts and have now taken to cursing me (I do that from time to time, but wow). The sooner this is gone, the better.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, salt as per Kintetsubuffalo and WP:VANITY. Noting in the meantime that only the cursing was justified :p ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:47, 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) 05:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tina-Desiree Berg[edit]

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

Fails to meet the notability standards of WP:NACTOR and WP:LAWYERS due to insufficient reliable sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)This artocle has more citations than most and all are 100% reliable.[reply]

Delete as per nominator. My sweeps didn't find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC) You did a current news sweeps for a scream queenn that was popular in the 90s? That makes logical sense to you?[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as the only services this article currently has is what it shows, and that's advertising what there is to say about her career and, in that, with unconvincing sources. There's absolutely nothing suggesting otherwise against these 2 listed concerns, especially if examining her career has found nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 29 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. Only keep !votes are from socks or don't address notability concerns at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Khattar[edit]

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

non notable entertainment executive. The refs for no part of his career are convincing; Considering the refs;

Is a extravagantly written overcoverage in an Indian magazine, if it'd not straight pr,its an advertorial
is a short pR blurb in an unestablished local NY magazine,
is a noncritical but enthusiastic review from a NYC magazine, whose reviews lack that stature of those in the nYT and the NewYorker.
is a promotional article in a magazine for executives
is in in a throughly unreliable source, used widely to place press relases
is an advertisement for a buddy,
Unreliable NYC source for restaurant reviews, as discussed above
The Indian EconomicTimes article is a advertorial , as customary for that source.
Habitat world is a house organ for a commerical centre.

 DGG ( talk ) 08:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mr. Khattar knows how to promote himself but that doesn't make him notable. Yintan 12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ This page should not be deleted. All the references mentioned on the page are from established and credible media houses. If there are concerns regarding some references, they can be removed, however the page should not be deleted. Anc2017 —Preceding undated comment added 13:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: user:Anc2017 ⋅is a now blocked sock. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Yintan. The self-promotional garbage stinks. So many of these otherwise reliable sources are compromised by pay-for-play coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Analysis above is thorough for those refs that I can see (some are blocked by my ad-blocker). Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ Responding to DGG's points on references, removing references of Alister & Paine & Village Voice. Wall Street Journal is a noteworthy publication, hence should stay. Habitat World refers to hospitality, cultural and entertainment facilities at India Habitat Centre, a non-profit centre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipfipf (talk • contribs) 12:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: user:pfipf ⋅is a now blocked sock. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references were revised several times. At present:

The first Indian Express articles is a short article about one of his company's films. It just mentions his name as founder. not substantial
The firstIndian Standard article ditto. not substantial
The second Indian Express article ditto. not substantial
The second Business Standard article ditto. not substantial
The first Economic Times elaborate PR job on his new restaurant that never skips an opportunity for a laudatory phrase. not reliable for anything. because its pure PR .
The first Financial Express article. ditto. not reliable except possibly for the restaurant<
The third Business Standard article.ditto. not reliable, except possibly for the restaurant
The WSJ article. Another restaurant review. not substantially about him, just about the restaurant

So we have 4 brief mentions of him in articles about his films, and restaurant reviewswhich might possibly justify an article on the restaurant. DGG ( talk ) 09:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. No mercy for paid sock farmers trying every trick in the book and scraping the barrel for sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, blatantly promotional (and that's before mentioning the sockpuppetry) - David Gerard (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with source analysis. Subject fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 18:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page has been edited. Please review the page again.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Less blatantly promotional, but still nothing at all that passes WP:GNG or a relevant subsidiary notability guideline - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 28 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. Salting may be done at an admin's discretion - I am not sure if a previous PRODded version does justify a salting here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Marx (University of Pretoria)[edit]

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

Prod removed by page creator without reason. Non notable businessman. Written like a resume Gbawden (talk) 08:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted under PROD with concern "Does not meet WP:GNG. Article does not have reliable sources (one of which is a LinkedIn profile)" and recreated by the original creator, and still with a LinkedIn page as a reference. Delete and salt - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 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) 05:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ubertaccio[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF as an leader in his field, because of the almost nonexistent publications, Does not meet it because of administrative work, for the level of the work is not high enough,..Does not meet it as an innovator in education, for the same reason. Any notability would be as a political operative, and would need to be show by GHN. "Often quoted by.." is not enough of a specification in that field, nor in being an analyst on a few television programs. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not found WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If we had sources showing he was cited as the leading expert on Massachusetts politics that might work, but the sources we have are not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Of note is that content-wise, this is not particularly a WP:G4 situation, based upon a comparison of article versions and content (example diff, example diff); the present version differs considerably. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yacht rock[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:Neologism recreated in 2016 without discussion after 2006 deletion decision in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yacht rock (also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 5#Category:Yacht rock). Now has an unsourced claim that it existed earlier than the series Yacht Rock, contradicting the AfD where the series creator says he "came up with the term". Closeapple (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 07:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – Submitter failed to cite any specific reason for how exactly "yacht rock" is non-notable (WP:GNG). There are plenty of reliable sources discussing the "yacht rock" genre within the article. Does that 10-year-old AfD really matter at this point? The term has obviously caught on since then.
- "From Haim to Chromeo: The new wave of Yacht-rockers" (The Independent)
- "Sail Away: The Oral History of 'Yacht Rock'" (Rolling Stone)
- "Can You Sail to It? Then It Must Be ‘Yacht Rock’" (The Wall Street Journal)
- "Popsmacked: Yacht Rock drifts on the currents of uncool" (The Record)

And so on.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it because it's sort of a WP:CSD#G4 that might no longer meet the criteria for G4. A bit of history on this article/title: The article was born rotten each time it was created in the past, a blatant attempt by people attached to the series to get a fictional element (the phrase itself) into Wikipedia, written in real-world terms as if it was in real use, when it wasn't. Admittedly, the phrase has gotten some traction in real life now. But since this phrase was pushed by people with WP:COI, and has a history of editing and AfD input by single-purpose accounts, and was deleted per discussion anyway, and seems to have whatever creation story is most likely to make it sound legitimate from time to time (including that claim that just disappeared after this AfD started), the whole thing surrounding this phrase still seems like it's being artificially propped up. (I don't think User:Ilovetopaint is part of the artificial push, though.) I think it at least needs an AfD to get consensus about whether the phrase itself is now separately notable, or still just a backreference to the series Yacht Rock that isn't separately notable. --Closeapple (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it might have started as a neologism (don't they all?) but honestly, I do think the term is now widely used across the media and general public. The sources cited above by Ilovetopaint are all very reliable, and even in the UK (hardly classic "yacht rock" territory) it's being used now in mainstream media: the BBC have broadcast a radio show on it, and the phrase is being used in newspaper articles from the left-wing The Guardian to the right-wing Daily Telegraph. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yacht rock has been the subject of various in-depth sources as pointed by Ilovetopaint and Richard3120. These sources discuss, in-depth, the genre itself and the reception it has received. The term was probably non-notable some 10 years ago, but that's not really relevant, as this is 2016, not 2006. Certainly meets WP:GNG. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources meet gng. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources listed above are compelling. To add to them, Sirius XM even gave the genre a (temporary) channel of its own, which [itself got citable coverage from the Wall Street Journal. There's plenty out there even from unimpeachable sources. At this point, I'm far from troubled if, ten years ago, this article had a dubious genesis. The content and sourcing now are surely not what they were then. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know why, but it looks to have received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Sources are sufficient to make this a notable topic. ABF99 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep Sources definitely established this topic....also see post by Mythadon. While not extensively detailed as an article on Wikipedia, it's received a lot of coverage by music journalists, and this page at least is a cohesive topic that details Yacht rock. Aleccat (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question (or maybe Merge to Soft rock): Is this a separate subject from Soft rock, or does the phrase "yacht rock" just sounds more clever/marketable right now? Soft rock's list of examples is 80% of what "yacht rock" claims, and cites P. Buckley, The Rough Guide to Rock (Rough Guides, 3rd edn., 2003), p. 378.), which predates the Yacht Rock series by 2 years. --Closeapple (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, they refer to different styles/eras of music. "Soft rock" is a generic, catch-all term while "yacht rock" is more specific.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DEVINITELY KEEP: The topic is notable and therefore the article should be retained. I do feel, however, that the article could use some changes in focus. Right now it reads more as a dictionary expanation--i.e. defining the topic as a linguistic term rather than as an actual musical sub-genre. So, it could be reworded to define the topic as a subgenre of soft rock (rather than as a term). It could also use some expansion, but those are just some constructive pointers. Keep the article. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:14, 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 redirect to Dirge (band). Don't usually close on 2 however as noted below most if not all albums get redirected to the singers article if there's no notability (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wings of Lead Over Dormant Seas[edit]

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

The topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own as it fails the criteria for WP:NALBUM.

If contributors can provide French sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Dirge (band), as is common practice where the individual albums lack notability. Separately, that assumes the band itself is notable, but I'm willing to AGF regarding some of those European magazine sources and call it a day on this one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, to Dirge (band) Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 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) 05:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Hammond[edit]

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

Not automatically entitled to an article just because of primary sources. Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE and WP:JOURNALIST Marvellous Spider-Man 06:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, added women project to article talkpage so participants are notified of the afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no secondary sources going into detail about Hammond, just primary database listings, a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview and one DreadCentral article which only mentions him briefly and in passing. --McGeddon (talk) 18:49, 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) 05:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olusola Awujoola[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for WP:BLP, due to lack of substantial coverage by reliable Nigerian media. Marvellous Spider-Man 04:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are of poor quality and there is a lot of namedropping. A designer who says they sent a gift to a celebrity does not somehow gain notability from that celebrity. I see no evidence that this person is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Results bring up blog posts thereby failing notability guideline. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 06:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 06:35, 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 redirect to Feminine Capital. And merge from history as needed. Sandstein 11:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine capital[edit]

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

Content fork of information that would be better served in the main Feminism article, where 'feminine capital' is not mentioned once. Readers are unlikely to find this information here, and it does not seem to be a neologism that needs a standalone article. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feminine capital is a new term, coined in the last year and half. This is apparent in the book "Feminine Capital" http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=22349 . Maybe it should also be refered to in "Feminism" but I do believe it can also stand on its own as its own term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjsp (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- I suspect it may be a way to promote the book Feminine Capital: Unlocking the Power of Women Entrepreneurs by Barbara Orser, Catherine Elliott, so WP:PROMO applies. I did not find similar references in other works, so it seems to be a term to promote this concept / book on the concept. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Perhaps, but as I said here and in the AfD for Entrepreneurial feminism, I think the major problem with these articles is that they are content forks where the information contained within would simply be better served elsewhere. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Feminine Capital. Unlocking the Power of Women Entrepreneurs as this is the name of the book Oster has authored; the useful content can be pulled from the editing history. I don't think that the term "feminine capital" has entered the mainstream yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge with 'entrepreneurial feminism. Pwolit iets (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Entrepreneurial feminism, a sufficiently similar concept, but then Redirect to Feminine Capital, which is both closely connected to the subject and, of course, has the same name. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William S. Hobson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the sources cited demonstrate notability, and I couldn't find anything that does. I understand that there was a previous AFD a few years ago, but I think we should revisit the issue. Simply counting up the number of cites doesn't seem quite right (especially considering that lots are multi-author works), and combined with the dearth of secondary sources to support the article, I'm concerned. agtx 03:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS h-index of around 39 (try GS with W S Hobson) is more than enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in a well-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- This was your justification last time as well, but I'm not sure I understand it. WP:PROF doesn't say anything about h-indicies--it seems to require a more nuanced look at things. When I look at the GS links, I see papers with 6-8 authors, and when I click on the "cited by" links, all of those papers have been cited similar numbers of times to the ones where Mr. Hobson is listed as an author. To me, that doesn't show individual notability. agtx 16:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - H-index is one of many proxies for the "impact" of a person's intellectual work and has routinely been used in STEM-related bio AfDs for years. As to the "individual" nature, except for a handful of journals that has started requiring authors to explicitly their contributions, there is no conclusive way to resolve this. It might be an issue for e.g. papers in biology or medicine (having say ~100 authors), but with a half-dozen-ish authors, it's safe to conclude that his contributions to these papers (some of which he's 1st author) were important. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WoS tells a substantially similar story. A search crossing his name with the places of employment listed in the article shows an h-index of 32 and at least a half-dozen papers having >100 citations. This certainly satisfies PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 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. This is a topic for and by specialists. At first glance no consensus emerges here. But I'm inclined to defer to the unanimous "delete" view of established editors with a track record of constructive contributions in the topic area. And I give less weight to a "keep" side represented entirely by IPs and low-editcount accounts, because with these contributors, canvassing, sockpuppetry or COI is a frequent concern. Sandstein 09:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Free-fall atomic model[edit]

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

This is, I think, a very obscure theory, and as far as I can tell, one that never really made an impact. All citations are from Gryziński, who proposed this, and AFAICT aren't cited by much anyone except Gryziński himself. I'm open to be convinced that the article should be kept, but as of now I just don't see how this meets WP:N. I don't have access to a lot of those articles however, so I don't have access their full citation record. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are 20+ papers from the best journals, some have huge amount of citations - according to Google Schoolar: "Classical Theory of Electronic and Ionic Inelastic Collisions" - 446 citations, "Two-particle collisions. I. General relations for collisions in the laboratory system" - 559 citations, "Two-particle collisions. II. Coulomb collisions in the laboratory system of coordinates" - 324 citations, "Classical Theory of Atomic Collisions. I. Theory of Inelastic Collisions" - 1308 citations 91.198.177.113 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those aren't about the free fall model, just collisions in general. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are respected results from purely classical considerations - including electrons, leading to surprisingly good agreement. And so the author has later also seen atoms in a classical way - with electrons falling to nucleus, then returning to the initial distance, like zero angular momentum degeneration of Bohr-Sommerfeld. This falling and drifting away makes atom effectively a pulsating multipole - such picture was used in his later classical scattering models. Anyway, shouldn't Wikipedia notice that trials of classical treatment of atom has not ended with Bohr-Sommerfeld? Gryzinski is definitely the most notable among such approaches. Classical approximation is useful for semi-classical ones. His main coauthor is professor Joseph Kunc ( https://gapp.usc.edu/about/faculty/joseph-kunc ) 83.12.37.198 (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gryzinski has worked in group of hot plasma for nearly half a century (article in Polish: http://web.archive.org/web/20121031093355/http://www.paa.gov.pl/dokumenty/ptj/sadowski10.pdf ), they have stated approach to fusion which is now called Dense plasma focus, he was the head of this group for 18 years. In this energy region classical approximations were sufficient. Now semi-classical approximations are popular, Rydberg atoms are often seen nearly classical. There should be some article about modern classical approximations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.128.48 (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I am uncomfortable with all references being a single author who produced a seemingly large body of work on this subject, doesn't' the fact that these are all published in peer reviewed journals carry some weight toward notablity? Also, these are top tier physics journals and the journal Nature. I don't see how anyone can do better than that - other than garner citations from other physicists. Maybe I am looking at this incorrectly, but I am tending toward "Keep". Headbomb, what is your opinion on what I just wrote? Steve Quinn (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of those citations are not related to the FFAM, but are rather general articles about the physics of particle collisions and the like. Yes they are good articles, but they don't support the material, so my opinion is unchanged because the citation that ARE related to the FFAM are very low impact, and very few people other than Gryziński ever bothered with his model. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these papers are about classical considerations, including treatment of electron, which is usually a part of an atom there. The topics of classical scattering and FFAM are integrally connected/interleaved: 1) scattering was used to infer and experimentally test these models (often personally by the author), 2) electron in FFAM performs successive scatterings from the nucleus, 3) atoms in FFAM picture are effectively pulsating electric multipoles (dipole, quadrupole) what is the base of his later scattering papers (since 1975). These impressive 25+ papers nicely show 43 years of evolution of view of a person who was plasma experimentalist and theoretician: from corrections to scattering models, through including magnetic dipole moment of electron into classical considerations, introducing and testing classical atomic model with better agreement than Bohr's, up to a similar view on multielectron atoms and molecules. Sure these are just approximations, but their surprisingly good agreement with experiments may bring valuable intuitions, helpful e.g. for construction of semi-classical models. 188.146.69.8 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: thanks very much. I see what you are saying. This clears things up. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added (a sketch of?) History section (Free-fall_atomic_model#History) to emphasize integrity of this series of papers - if it helps, I could improve it. Otherwise, feel free to remove it. 188.146.69.234 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, It adds very little because that series of paper is by far an large not about the FFAM, but rather particle collisions in general. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These collision/scattering models assume classical electron, and often a classical model of atom - tested by agreement with experimental scattering. For example "Three-body analysis of electron-hydrogen atom collisions": assume a classical model of hydrogen (circular or radial), shoot it with a classical electron, and compare predictions of both with experiment. Or "Ramsauer Effect as a Result of the Dynamic Structure of the Atomic Shell" and "Classical theory of atomic collisions. II. Low energy scattering" see atom effectively as a pulsating multipole, as a consequence of assuming radial electron trajectories. Or "Systematics of spectral lines and classical atom": "It is shown that line intensities and main energy level shifts are directly related to the non-spherical and time-dependent electric field of the atomic core.". 188.146.37.99 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For example alongside the 1965 paper with 1300 citations, he publishes Phys. Rev. Lett. paper.: "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom” explaining why assumptions made in the classical scattering paper exclude Bohr circular orbits - here are its first three paragraphs:

“In a series of papers on the classical theory of atomic collisions recently published by the author, it has proved necessary, both for the qualitative explanation of a number of experimental phenomena as well as for their appropriate quantitative description, to proceed with certain assumptions which are in contradiction with the prevailing classical notions regarding the structure of atom and, of course, in contradiction with the wave approach to the atom.

First, in order to explain such phenomena as the asymptotic form of excitation and ionization formulas for high energies of the bombarding particles and the absence of a threshold for processes of inelastic collisions with heavy particles, it was necessary to assume a continuous velocity distribution of atomic electrons. Second, in order to account the diffraction pattern associated with the crystalline structures, it was necessary to accept the existence of a strong anisotropy in the velocity distribution of atomic electrons.

Such assumptions are totally unacceptable from the point of view of electrons moving in circular or even elliptic orbits, since the range of variability of electron velocity is too narrow and the anisotropy too low. The assumption concerning the continuous velocity distribution of atomic electrons may be accounted for on the basis of classical mechanics only by the fact that the moving electron exists both beyond and in the immediate vicinity of the attracting center represented by the nucleus” 188.146.72.198 (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's about the well-known failures of the Bohr model, not about the FFAM. While it certainly may have been a motivation for it, it's still not a paper about the FFAM, and does not succeed in establishing its notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the title of this paper: "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom”. Radially means along the radius, what is equivalent with free-fall, the third equivalent description used is zero angular momentum. Other close formulations used are just classical regarding electrons, and from first principles (just Newton+Coulomb+Lorentz, without assuming axioms of QM). Let us look at abstract of some later papers: "Collisional ionisation and the atomic model" 29 citations: "...The theoretical results appear to be sensitive to the atomic model used; in the case of the free-fall atomic model, they are found to be in good agreement with the experimental data. ", "“Free-fall” solution of the Kepler problem in the presence of the magnetic moment" 27 citations, it's in title, "A concept of “free-fall” multi-electron atomic model" 24 citations, in title, "Three-body analysis of electron-hydrogen atom collisions" (22 citations): "...The basic feature of the model atom employed in the present work is its zero angular momentum due to the assumption of the radial motion of the atomic electron ('free-fall' trajectory)...". Sure, maybe the list of articles is too long - please point the least connected one. 188.146.146.81 (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is 25+ articles from top journals (Phys. Rev. class) with ~ 3000 total citations: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski . The author was physicist (experimentalist and theoretician) working nearly half a century in Polish Academy of Sciences. The articles consistently cover classical treatment of atoms, including electrons, focusing on agreement with experimental data - much more citations have the classical scattering papers (~2500 total), but direct consequence of their assumptions was the FFAM (1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. "Radially Oscillating Electron-the Basis of the Classical Model of the Atom” article), later tested and used for classical scattering considerations (sensitive to assumed electron trajectory) and other phenomena like Ramsauer effect (1970 Phys. Ref. Lett. "Ramsauer Effect as a Result of the Dynamic Structure of the Atomic Shell"), diamagnetism (1987 Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials "Diamagnetism of matter and structure of the atom") or modeling molecular bond (1994 Chemical Physics Letters "Dynamical model of the molecular bond"). The later articles directly applying FFAM also have total of a few hundreds of citations. 188.146.3.91 (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of what is written in the above Ivote pertains to off-topic material and also ignores the lack of impact this theory has had in mainstream physics. All of the above, and many article references are meant to artificially puff up the importance of this theory. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting obscure theories (see Ivote below). Steve Quinn (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These 25+ articles have been accepted in top journals - do you imply that editors and reviewers of these journals accept obscure theories? The article emphasizes "This model has never been part of mainstream physics.", but it has both coverage and was not ignored. I responded with concrete arguments from the materials in discussion, please also give concrete objective arguments, not just your subjective evaluation. If you find something "obscure" in these articles, please point it, explain your evaluation and we can discuss your arguments. 188.146.133.196 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This theory has never had a significant impact in the mainstream physics field as demonstrated by the lack of citations by other researchers. It seems to have been ignored. As noted above, most of the article references do not pertain to this particular topic. This theory has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG - including the mainstream press. Wikipedia is not a platform for promoting obscure theories per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:NOTFORUM. Steve Quinn (talk) 21:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant coverage? Lack of citations by other researchers? Here you have access to a list of ~3000 citations for 25+ articles from top journals: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?hl=en&q=gryzinski . Here you have example of Wikipedia article for 1 paper with 13 citations: Statistical Lempel–Ziv. Where is the boundary? 188.146.64.200 (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you stop with the misleading POV assertions. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before questioning someones objectivity, please finally start with a single objective argument - based on the given historical material. This deletion nomination and discussion currently looks like a witch hunt, far from being objective. The official reason is lack of notability, but if measured in papers and citations, it easily exceeds tenfold notability of many other Wikipedia articles. The only other given reason is being “a very obscure theory” without providing even a single argument for this very subjective evaluation. I have looked closer at some of these papers (I have PhD in physics) and they contain solid calculations (wouldn’t be accepted in these journals otherwise) using just basic classical physics, like Coulomb and Lorentz force, and compare their theoretical predictions with experimental values, getting surprisingly good agreement – please explain what is controversial or obscure here? If you have found some weaknesses of their analysis, missed by the reviewers, please share it. They obviously lack the perfection of quantum predictions, but it is definitely good to know the limits of classical considerations, especially that the discussion about the foundations of quantum mechanics still continues. If your objection is lack of connections between these 25+ papers, there was a specific question above to point the least connected paper - still zero answers. Please respond to the evidence above, which refer to the actual text showing their connection - like the 1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. paper explaining necessity of FFAM electron trajectory for the 1300 citations classical scattering paper. 188.146.144.42 (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this short article might be interesting for the history of physics, but it seems to be relegated, no? Bearian (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nice 2012 Grujic "Classical theory of atomic collisions – The ﬁrst hundred years" review, which discusses two schools: semi-classical "Stirling school" and classical "Warsaw school" (Gryzinski's), with nice comment to his classical atomic models: "(...) may be considered a historiographical alternative, which answers the possible question: what would have happened had the QM not been invented?". The number of citations itself suggests theses papers had a real influence on the history of physics. However, these had finally turned out to be an alternative history - very solid work to understand how far can we go with the classical approximation. Understanding its limitation - what is still missing, is one of a natural way to really deeply understand the quantum mechanics. 188.146.68.213 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic in general looks relevant, but I'm not sure if the current article is sufficient to give an overview: what are the applications of the model, what are the limits? Is this purely of historical interest, or still relevant? As an example, if the model is unable to reproduce quantized energy levels, this should be mentioned (because it means the model is not useful for atoms at all). If it is, this is a remarkable achievement for a classical theory and should be mentioned. If the atom has a time-dependent dipole, why doesn't it radiate? --mfb (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Applications started with various scattering scenarios, later he has also used it for different topics like Ramsauer effect (as higher state electrons screening the lower ones), calculating diamagnetic coefficient, Stark effect and a few others. Limits? These are pure classical (e.g. no interference) - Bohr plus magnetic dipole moment of electron, plus precession of this spin (also as gyroscope), he has used this precession to explain Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization (1987 "Spin-dynamical theory of the wave-corpuscular duality"). This quantization basically produces energy levels as Bohr. Regarding lack or bremsstrahlung, I don't know his explanation. Personally, I see it through Couder's quantization for walking droplets ( http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17515.full ): closed trajectories and Bohr-Sommerfeld condition lead to resonance with the surrounding field. 89.70.181.191 (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The banner question for content like this is simple: is there independent reliable coverage? That is, did other people directly address them at nontrivial length? The IP editor supporting retention has provided a lot of links to scholarly discussions of particle collision physics in the general case, and a lot of citation counts for Gryziński's works. But neither of those approaches illuminate whether this model is itself notable. For example, a couple of Gryziński's flagship papers that directly address this theory are in Physics Letters A: "A concept of 'free-fall' multi-electron atomic model" and "'Free-fall' solution of the Kepler problem in the presence of the magnetic moment", each with a couple dozen citations. However, the bulk of those are self-citations from Gryziński's other papers, and none of the independent citations seem to give significant coverage of the topic. Indeed, papers like this Physics Reports article look promising, but are primarily concerned with his 1959 work, which predates the free-fall model. Honestly, I think the best solution here would be to redirect this article (merging appropriately given due weight) to an article on Gryziński himself; he's done some fairly significant things and, overall, has been pretty well-cited, and I think there's a case that he's notable. But currently, Michał Gryziński redirects to this article. In the absence of a viable redirect target, and given the lack of independent reliable coverage of this model specifically, I can only support deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people have been working on classical considerations in this scale even after QM, and Gryzinski's half century of tremendous work is definitely the most notable among them: based on agreement with many different experiments, published dozens of papers about it in top journals, got thousands of citations. An ultimate argument against Bohr's picture, which is taught in schools, is electron capture - which requires electrons to get to femtometer scale distance so nuclear force can start acting (as in FFAM). The FFAM has been the base of his papers since the PRL in 1965, which introduced it as requirement for his classical scattering papers with 2000+ citations. These later 20+ papers have about 500 total citations - if it is not sufficient for a separate Wikipedia article, change it to Michał Gryziński, modify the order (FFAM after History, I can help), and redirect from FFAM. Also, there should be a section about his classical scattering papers. 21:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.64.242 (talk)

Keep: This is an alternative theoretical formulation which is tested experimentally in scattering experiments. It is not the only alternative theoretical formulation present on Wikipedia, there are many others like , for instance, non-standard cosmology, so the argument re mainstream belonging does not really hold.--213.233.84.3 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as work in progress towards a more comprehensive article on Gryziński's work or himself. Or possibly move to Draft space if that is ever done.-- pretty IittIe Iiar 04:30, 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. Sandstein 11:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generic bit-banding[edit]

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

When it comes to bit banding, generic or otherwise, I can only find information on ARM's usage of this technique. In fact, it seems to me to be a term applied to an algorithm implemented in their hardware. I would say that bit banding fails WP:GNG, as I cannot find any reliable references on the topic outside of ARM manuals. Even if this is refuted, though, this article is about "generic" bit banding, which is, while not defined well by the article in its current state, should apply to topics beyond ARM's usage, which I could not find any references on whatsoever. Sjrct (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability made. ¡Boz zio! 04:38, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 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. This has been open for a long time. There are persuasive arguments on both sides, but I am not seeing consensus for either argument. Vanamonde (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Khan (singer)[edit]

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

Due to a far more famous namesake actress, it is very difficult to find sources. Most present sources are related or fail otherwise to WP:RS. Does not seem to make the threshold of notability WP:GNG The Banner talk 23:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 9 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, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not yet risen to the level of being a notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she is known for singing in a non-English language. Has anyone searched in Urdu for her? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:42, 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 03:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much above the bar set by NMUSIC. Some examples are below:

"Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour." Tribune, Geo TV, Sabaoon TV
"Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." 35 minutes coverage in Naghma Zar

Just a note for other readers, she's a Pashto singer, not Urdu. Many more such examples can be found and added to the article. Lourdes 05:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article still shows no significance and YouTube is not a reliable source. The Banner talk 18:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think your nomination and reasoning are faulty on policy grounds due to a variety of reasons; mentioned below (my apologies much in advance; this is not meant to question your efforts):

When you nominated this article, you only referred to GNG, not realizing that SNG could also be a probable route for notability.
When you nominated this article, you claimed there were no RS. You could have easily done a Before and got sources like Tribune and Afghan News, which alone are enough to raise the notability of the subject above the NMUSIC bar (even if one were to forget the so-called Youtube links for a moment).
Currently, you mention that "YouTube is not a reliable source". You need to at least once go through Youtube to understand that there is no policy or guideline that restricts Youtube links; what is important to understand are the situations when Youtube should not be linked (especially the copyright issues that one has to be careful of; but of course, you are not referring to that). I have provided you two archived videos of news reports that allow the subject to qualify on an additional NMUSIC guideline. Within the article, you don't need to link to Youtube. You can simply quote the actual sources, Geo TV and Saboon TV. Verifiability requires the citing of the reliable source (Geo TV and Saboon TV in this case) and not providing of web links.
Lastly, the article may or may not show a credible claim, but while in CSDs, that criteria is valid, (that an article may be deleted if no credible claim of significance is mentioned), in deletion discussions, the criteria to be followed is mentioned in GNG and SNG. If you have an issue with significance not being shown in the article, that is not a valid sole claim in Afd discussions, especially for subjects like Laila Khan who has had extensive significant coverage in Tribune, Afghan News, Geo TV, Saboon TV, etc all of which I have documented above.

If the interested editors have time, they can include these sources and their contents on to the article. A regional bias should not dissuade us from including worthy subjects into Wikipedia, especially subjects like Laila Khan who are titled some of the most "famous Pashto singers". Lourdes 03:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just do me a favour and start reading Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The Banner talk 08:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a grasp of it. Which particular part would you wish me to read up? (There's nothing on youtube, and nothing particularly on Tribune or Geo TV or Afghan News or other regional sources being unreliable; if you might be referring to that; but please do direct me to the particular section and I'll go through it). Thanks. Lourdes 11:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start with the sections "Self-published sources (online and paper)" and "User-generated content". The Banner talk 12:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Do you believe that the Tribune, Afghan News etc sources might be self-published sources? Lourdes 12:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With Banner's assistance in removing unwanted links, I've edited the article a bit and added all the sources now to the article. Lourdes 15:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsuitable, incorrect and/or double "sources". The Banner talk 20:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Banner, I've added ten sources, out of which five that discuss the subject at considerable length. I am not sure if you're referring to those sources, or to the ones that have been removed. Therefore, I would suggest that if you have any issue with the current 10 sources (5 of which are absolutely extensive coverage of the subject), please list the sources below and your objection to them. Thanks. Lourdes 02:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At present the following sources are not more than passing mentions: source 1 (Walk Down memory Lane), source 3 (AVT channels launches musical Web TV), source 4 (Hunar-e-Hawwa awards conferred on excelling women; no indication of the value of this local award), source 6 (‘Amann’, a Pushto anthem for APS tragedy). Source 7 to 10 can not be checked at all, and the last one seems to be a primary source (interview with miss Khan). The Banner talk 13:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Banner for the concise and correct analysis. By your analysis, I believe you accept source 5 (The Tribune source) to be significant as per RS. I also believe that if you are not able to check source 7 to 10, you can check the archives of all of them by pasting the key words "Laila Khan" and the channel name in Google search. The 10th source is a feature combination covering the singers achievements and combined with a live interview and songs by the performer. And these qualify her on NMUSIC (as stated right above). Thanks. Lourdes 14:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Significant is a big word, "just acceptable" is a better description. Reason for that is that it is close to a primary source: an interview with the singer herself. Primary sources should be avoided and replaced by independent sources. The Banner talk 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Banner. Just acceptable is fair enough. As the 10th source is evidence of Laila Khan being "a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network", one can expect that it would include her primary statements too, and this would again qualify her on NMUSIC. Lourdes 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: The article is too far along for me to delete it per G5, but it was created by a puppet of a rather prolific sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23. Thanks for the note. I'm alright with whatever action you deem fit per your judgement. I'll defer to that (even if you wish to delete this later). Lourdes 03:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse: another blocked sockpuppet The Banner talk 11:49, 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 redirect to Gnana Kirukkan. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jega (actor)[edit]

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

Insignificant ~~actress~~ actor not meeting general notability requirements Meatsgains (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gnana Kirukkan, only film subject has acted in and known for. Names can be tricky in Indian context. Maria Jegarajan is a he. He is supposedly working on 1 or 2 more films, may be one can turn redirect into an article if they bring the actor sufficient coverage. Anup [Talk] 14:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing his gender to my attention. I struck through and corrected. Meatsgains (talk) 17:19, 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 02:02, 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 03:23, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Pai Dong (restaurant)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 16:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches found very little written about this restaurant chain. I did add a link to a Kampery webpage as an external link to the article. Lacks significant coverage published in reliable sources. Gab4gab (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 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 03:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reference is dead, and the restaurant shows nothing notable about it.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; insufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per logic outlined at WP:UNOPPOSED--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:06, 29 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lawrence (producer)[edit]

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

Not independently notable music producer. The Grammy award, which I think probably is the sole reason why this article was accepted from draft is for the whole band Mumford & Sons and not exclusively for him. I'm unsure if the award from The Music Producers Guild is a de facto notability. Not individually notable, fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Redirect to Mumford & Sons —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - added sources to verify his winning a Grammy award, added a profile in external links, minor copy edits.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:25, 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 02:08, 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 03:23, 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. WP:NPASR per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chemy Soibelman[edit]

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

Notable? I think not. TheLongTone (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has been a member of The Groggers, G-Nome Project, and briefly Hamakor, which satisfies criteria 6 of WP:BAND. Stub is not the same as non-notable.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 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 03:23, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Amy Wroe Bechtel[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This kind of thing happens fairly frequently and is of absolutely zero encyclopdic interest. TheLongTone (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. And just because peple with morbid intests dig up these stories now and again it it does not mean they are of any lasting interest.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately Amy Wroe Bechtel is not notable for anything other than having disappeared. A plethora of news articles does not make notability. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't about Amy Wroe Bechtel, it's about her disappearance. And a plethora of news article actually does make a topic notable -- see WP:SIGCOV. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominators "morbid interest" in others "morbid interest" in these kind of articles are interesting. Anyway, this is clearly a IDONTLIKEIT nom based on NOTNEWS. Clearly this case has received plenty of attention. The article is kind of short but that can be fixed. This article covers both WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE. Even the user !voting delete also uses IDONTLIKEIT when referring to the fact that the article subject has been the fixture of plenty of media coverage ever since the disappearance. Tiredly referring to NOTNEWS without going further into your thoughts is just pointless.BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article creator is a serial creator of worthless articles. The amount of time and energy I devote to attempting to purge Wikipedia of this guff is nothing to the amount of time the article creaor devotes to this guff.TheLongTone (talk) 11:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I resent your characterization of me as a "serial creator of worthless articles". I'm not sure what basis you have for that. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also repudiate the implications of bad faith iplicit here. @I don't like it my curvy pink butt. I believe this article should be deleted because the subject is not worthy of an encyclopedia article because it is of no lasting interest. There will always be articles on unsolved murders & sisappearances; the topic is of interest but the individual example rarely so.TheLongTone (talk) 11:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have nominated three Disappearance/Murder of.. articles all three has been kept. BabbaQ (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helped by the fact that there is a nasty little cabal who get busy canvassing eacother when one of these worthless articles is nominated. I think the number of editors who agree that these articles should go vindicates me. And I only got into this because I nominated an article I came across while new article patrolling; I almost immediately got accused of wikistalking merely because I nominated another article by the editor. These people are not acting in good faith.TheLongTone (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic. Without the over-the-top remarks about others. BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep This case has inspired ongoing coverage, including this August 2016 [9] long article in Runner's World.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article also seems to have inspired ongoing coverage as well. Clearly notable.BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 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 03:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject clearly meets WP:GNG based on the extensive coverage it has received over the years. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 03:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Adults go "missing" all the time so it is not really encyclopedic, being mentioned in a TV entertainment program doesnt give it notability either. MilborneOne (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant, in comparison to notability and sources-BabbaQ (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS; no indications of notability or significance sufficient for an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merely a news story; repeat coverage is indicative of missing white woman syndrome and therefore should not be taken as an indicator of notability, but rather as "routine" (for this type of case) coverage. Sandstein 18:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: missing white woman syndrome is a good one! Describes this article perfectly. Runner's World would be the outlet to continue the coverage as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS; a sad occurrence but not uncommon around the world. And just because it was a segment on a TV show does not mean lasting notability. I am sure there are many such cases which have been featured on similar shows which have no articles and there are, unfortunately, many similar occurrences which are never on a TV show which also do not have articles herein. Kierzek (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant. Of course there are other similar cases but for that matter we dont find a sportmans not notable because there are other sportmen who are just as good. IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant as well.BabbaQ (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

has anybody cited WP:OTHERSTUFF? . I thought not. I don't understand the rest of the above para either.TheLongTone (talk) 11:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user above states that its not uncommon around the world. that is Otherstuffexists. people disappears all the time, but that is irrelevant to individual notability. BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT. While an unfortunate event, I don't see enough to show that is notable compared to similar disappearances. The coverage is on the lower side and mostly local. Usually a crime would be notable if it, for example, leads to some lasting secondary effect (a change in a law, a link to another crime etc). I don't see that happening here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"mostly "local news" does not trump overall coverage and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified above that it doesn't satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:LASTING. We do consider the type of coverage. Local coverage can make literally anything appear notable (as I remember one editor saying, their dog eating up the gardens in their small town would become notable enough, if we use local sources for GNG). The quality, the amount of detail and the frequency of coverage does matter here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Bateson[edit]

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

~~The article has no references to independent sources, and~~ I have failed to find anything that would establish notability Maproom (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel the above remark - I had failed to notice the actual references, which I have now moved into the "References" section. The HuffPost article seems acceptable, I don't have access to the Formenti book. Maproom (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - has some independent coverage and is above only being a press release page. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 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 02:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have enough coverage to justify an article on this filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: The article reads like gibberish but there appears to be a minimal amount of sourcing adequate to meet GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 21:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable or not, all of the content is pretentious nonsense, a poor attempt at promotion by an obvious COI account, and unworthy of an encyclopedia. TNT and let a neutral editor recreate it if anybody cares to. Sandstein 18:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a good dose of WP:TNT; this is strictly a vanity page, with poetic language and outsized claims. Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Weakly sourced, including self-citations. HuffPo is a blog and is generally not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [Declaration of interest: I am Bateson's publisher]. Above claims of 'pretentious nonsense' and 'gibberish' seem close to trolling. In what sense are Sandstein and Coffman qualified to make these unsupported judgements? Have they read her work? Bateson's work is credible, ground-breaking, influential and acclaimed. Her book, just published, is good confirmation of this. Additional refernecing from the International Bateson Institute to follow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewCarey (talk • contribs) 09:21, 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 no consensus. But those who want to keep suggest making the article about the magazine, so if that does not happen, a renomination may be considered. Sandstein 18:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G Files awards[edit]

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

It should be noted that this is an award given by a "Governance magazine" named "gfiles".

This is not a government award. This award is not given by Government of India.

This award is in the news as some very notable people were given this award. Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about the parent magazine, which gives this award "gfiles". This is their magazine website and this is their award website. Now, Indian government websites end with .gov.in Marvellous Spider-Man 09:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very strong possibility that this page Gfiles (deleted twice) is related to this magazine which gives this award. --Marvellous Spider-Man 09:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with suggestion that it might make more sense to move it to the name of the magazine (whether that is Gfiles or G Files remains to be determined) based on the sources I found. I suspect more independent sources exist in Indian newspapers that Google didn't show me, but I don't think the award is notable independent of the magazine. I was unaware that an article on the magazine had previously been deleted, but since it was deleted initially as a test page and then as G11/A7 (promotion/no indication of significance) I suspect it lacked independent sources, and my search indicated that such sources do exist. I don't therefore consider the previous deletions rule out keeping this article or moving it to cover the magazine as well as the awards. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to gfiles which is apparently the name of the magazine (they always use a lowercase g in every reference I found) and make it a section of an article about the magazine. I have found a handful of references reporting on this award, so it is apparently notable, but I think it would make more sense as a subsection of an article about the magazine, which appears to meet our inclusion criteria, previous prods notwithstanding. Fieari (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 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 03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable award. Fails GNG. Except for the one economictimes article, other source domains are not even reliable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:55, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beesha Fiqi Yaaqub[edit]

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

An Ethiopian sub-Clan or community (ie Beesha). It's a clan in the Gedo region of Ethiopia. It's a sub, sub subclan (six levels down) of the Darod clan. Below Darood, Fiqi Yaaqub is a member of the sublcan Sade and then Marehan. Neither the Darood or Marehan articles mentions Fiqi Yaaqub. Article is all mixed up and hard to grasp anything. Lots of talk about genealogy. There's nothing to save. Prod was removed saying, "no clue what it is but might be notable". Bgwhite (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 8 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, 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 03:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. I found a mention here but am otherwise unable to understand anything in the article. Seems like a Somali (or is it Ethiopian?) sub-clan. But there is nothing available in scholarly literature and the way the article is written, I am unable to understand anything else as well. I guess this is ripe for a WP:TNT. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:44, 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. Euryalus (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DistrictBuilder[edit]

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

Blatant promotion bombarded with passing mentions, non mentions and faked verification. Random refs thrown in to verify related aspects that are not specifically about this software. Deceptive article from paid promoters. This software lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the awards are major. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Keep - The Washington Post article mentioned in the lead gives a good mention of DistrictBuilder in the context of it being a notable method for citizen groups to try redistricting. It's only a single mention, but the context provides weight, IMO. That's one RS... I usually require two. The reference "Mason Political Scientist McDonald Wins Award for Redistricting Software" would be my second, except the link is dead and the wayback machine doesn't have it. If the content of that reference is what our article claims it to be, then that is plenty sufficient to merit keeping. I do note that a large number of other references are tagged that they don't actually back up the claims made in our article... so, I'll grant that this is not a necessary given.

IFF someone can find this dead link, and it checks out, or if another source for the award can be found, this is a Keep vote. Otherwise, mark me down as ambivalent. All the "statement not supported by reference" tags is certainly troubling, after all. But AfD is not cleanup, so... Fieari (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mason ref is primary, comes from one of the developers employer. Article itself is available here. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article is primary... but is the award self given (a vanity award)? More importantly, is the award NOTABLE? If the award is notable, then that in addition to the Washington Post reference would be sufficient for me to make this a firm keep. I'm not certain it is notable, and my google news searches on the award are giving me results that I'm not 100% certain are actually related. Do you know anything about the award? Fieari (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can see, it's an award from an individual convention. Register and pay, you are in line for an award. Small pool, small audience. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 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 02:19, 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 03:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Softwares tend to have some of the best coverage available and here it clearly doesn't satisfy. This Washington Post coverage is very brief, like 2 -3 sentences and I don't see enough depth over here. Neither do I see any other reliable third party sources covering it. Wikipedia is a not a directory of all software and this is pretty much a non-notable one. This doesn't pass GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:05, 4 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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange Data International Limited[edit]

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

Companies need to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. The depth of sources required is not satisfied here. Marvellous Spider-Man 06:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 13:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; strictly an advertorial page with sections such as "History and about" and "Products". Tone is promotional, and sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references seem good and enough to pass it Notability. But the article is a little bit promotional, which can be fixed by tagging it with "advert" tag and thorough cleanup. Not a reason for deletion. - Mar11 (talk) 17:03, 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 03:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a distinct paucity of independent RS coverage that reaches WP:CORPDEPTH - David Gerard (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is hardly any coverage in RS. I found one link to a forbes/sites [10] but this doesn't help it notability (Forbes/sites have been previously considered as WP:USERGENERATED sources). This is far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:57, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Roshan[edit]

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

Not notable for anything tennis related. No main draw appearances on the ATP tour, No wins in the minor league Challenger Tour, No Davis Cup. No idea on GNG, but as far as Tennis Project, he's a run of the mill, non-notable player. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable minor sports player/figure. No wins, as noted. Kierzek (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 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 03:21, 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 speedy delete (repost of a deleted article). Huon (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dami Tha Prince (music producer)[edit]

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

Fails both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Google search reveals no substantial coverage, and links in the article currently are not reliable sources. Google News only returns three pages, none related to this producer. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Page's current references, of which Twitter and Soundcloud are included, are poor. Meatsgains (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands no evidence of notability, no sources good enough to allow it to stay as a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, speedy as recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dami Tha Prince (I look for someone else to concur on this) and salt both - David Gerard (talk) 13:35, 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) 05:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Cataldo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP;PROF. The references are either from his own college or the local newspapers that will publish anything at all about local people--and none of them are substantial. He operates a bottled water company, & has taken care that it gets some publicity, but those are just PR. He created costume designs for a few important films, but none of his designs have won any prizes of their own. He has no significant academic works, and according to WP:PROF, the notability of faculty in the creative arts are judged by the criteria for those arts--and he does not meet them. DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 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 02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nom. What coverage I have been able to find seems to come from sources that while not necessarily doubtful in their veracity, are compromised either by some tangible connection to the subject, or by being purely local. We need more than this to meet GNG. I would also note that there is more than slight whiff of promotionalism here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the argument for keeping would seem to rely on the "award winning" discussed. However, seeing the press release from the award organization, Cataldo is not mentioned; this is an award that goes to the product, and doesn't automatically tie to an individual (unlike, say, how a producer gets a Best Picture Oscar or an author gets a major book award. (The article curiously both overstates how it was described and understates it simultaneously; when it says it was the third best water in the world in 2015, it's using a 2013 source, the year it took the bronze. In 2015, it took the gold, so it was the best... but only the best purified water, and only among those entered.) The TV source reeks of churnalism. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC) And just to back up what I say about the award not necessarily representing the world's best: "What is surprising however is how few bottlers are actually involved in the competition." --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:38, 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. —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suhas Kshirsagar[edit]

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

Article contains two sources one is his book (primary) and the other is to Deepak Chopra's website (dead, but not reliable anyway). A google search just shows more primary and unreliable sources. AIRcorn (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: apparently fails GNG. Anup [Talk] 08:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Santos[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR for lack of available reliable, independent sources.- Mr X 13:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC) - Mr X 13:58, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 15 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) 14:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:31, 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 02:32, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no starring roles in notable films means does not meet WP:ENT. Searches on the news articles bring up the celebrity chef that was a runner-up on Hell's Kitchen, not this actor from Portugal. Article was fashioned by connected contributor and mentions non-notable web series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not listed as a cast member in the blue links, this page may have been made by a relative (who also created deleted article Keven Santos Xyzspaniel (talk) 17:15, 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Advertising Group[edit]

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

Not notable. It's claims to notability seem to rest upon winning non-notable awards and an inherited notabity from its client list. Cabayi (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: - Those "non-notable awards" have Wikipedia articles, which is an obvious contradiction: Cannes Lions International Festival of Creativity, Epica Awards. The "Aranypenge prize" is a Hungarian one running for 17 years now. I don't have the incentive to browse through the Lions' and Epica's winners to see how many of them is known for absolutely nothing. :-) --grin ✎ 07:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by all means because this article essentially exists only for PR, the fact it only focuses with otherwise activities fit and suitable for company listings. To be state the obvious, the company is an advertising company, therefore the environment is going to be....PR. The listed sources otherwise state this, considering none of it is actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sorry for being the Devil's advocate but do you intend to delete every advertising company from Wikipedia since they are... PR? My starting point is usually Ogilvy & Mather, how about trying to getting it removed? I much more would like comments along the line that "there are no independent, external references" or "there are no activities listed apart from winning the awards" instead of "it's a PR agency so the article must be PR". (It was not written by them, that's what I know. I am not related to them, that's another, just being called in to help.) --grin ✎ 08:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think there's a reasonable comparison?

Ogilvy & Mather, one of the world's largest, 166 year history, multi-national vs.
Republic Advertising Group, seemingly no presence outside Hungary, 19 years old.

I think you're over-reaching there. Cabayi (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. You stated that "if it's a PR company then the article must be PR, therefore to be deleted by default". Size was not mentioned, neither notability nor relevance. I have reacted exactly on that. I am not familiar with the handling of PR companies but I'm sure it's not enough reason to be deleted that it is an advertising company. (If I was I would have voted.)

Please do check this category to see for yourself that 19 years old is not a problem, there are much younger ones already listed. And it should definitely not be a reasoning that "it's not in the USA so must not be relevant". Nationally relevant entities have their place in enwp. (Apart from that that it seems to be awarded by a foreign body so they have been at least noted outside HU.) --grin ✎ 08:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grin, You invited comparison with O&M, then complain when I make the comparison. You then ascribe comments about PR companies and the USA to me which I did not make. Rational discussion with you isn't possible. Cabayi (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi: You are being unfair.

[UPDATE: I have replied to you since I have believed you made the comment but I have realised that user:SwisterTwister made the post, I have replied it and you have replied as it was your comment I was replied to. I apologise for the misunderstanding: I have replied to the specific comment above, and if I have said "you" I have meant the original poster.]

I quote the original post I have replied by SwisterTwister: "To be state the obvious, the company is an advertising company, therefore the environment is going to be....PR.". I have complained that he made this statement, which (in my reading) means "it is obvious that the company is an advertising company, therefore the article must be an advertisement". I have cited O&M as a counter-proof of his statement. I also have cited the list of already established Wikipedia articles about advertising companies, about companies with less than 100+ years of operation, about companies with pretty short list of publicly recognisable achievements and along these lines: all of these being a direct reaction (counter-examples) on what he have written. He made more statements along these lines, and I tried to show or mention articles contradicting what he has said or implied. If you believe I have debated myself you have possibly misunderstood what I was writing. Please try to read it as it were a reaction to what he has written. :-) Thanks. --grin ✎ 08:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm sceptical of this article -- created by a SPA; tone is clearly promotional. I reached out to Wikiproject Hungary. Hopefully they would be able to shed some light on this subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to @K.e.coffman:

The article was created by a person whom I'm familar with and he approached me by asking for help about what's now. (He's not very familiar with wp processes.) He is in connection with the company and was asked to create an article (I suppose), but he can probably change the tone if asked, he probably don't want to invest more time into a deleted article. I will suggest him to rephrase it anyway, if possible.

As someone from Hungary I cannot see what more light could be shed on that. I can assure that the sources do exist and they are real, I have checked them. As for the company: It's some advertising company who have created some more or less visible local projects, have been awarded by some significant national and some international bodies, so I (as someone don't knowing the topic) would consider them notable on the basis that they were picked from the masses of advertising companies by some basis like quality, skills or luck :-). I never have heard of the company, nor the other already wikipedia listed companies in the field, so that won't help. The article was created in huwp around the same time and it's been flagged as "requires rewriting of promotionally phrased content", but not on deletion track. --grin ✎ 08:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the tone of the article is clearly promotional. No sources have been presented at the AfD to demonstrate notability of the company. The awards alone cannot sustain an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ciara Durkin[edit]

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

Delete: tragic case of a death deemed suspicious by family but after nine years absolutely no evidence of anything suspicious, any murder or conspiracy. Tragic but not notable. Quis separabit? 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree it is tragic but not shown to be notable; Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 16:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E; a family tragedy, but does not rise to a level of encyclopedia notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:33, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mazo[edit]

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

Lack of notability, User:Alwhorl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwhorl (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 September 2016(UTC)

Comment: Who nominated this article for deletion? There is no signature. Safehaven86 (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as examining this has not found any claims of actually satisfying the applicable notability, normally we could often look to the native Wiki, but I for one actuslly know the EsWiki has onee of the worst standards considering there has not actually been any sources; if no one has cared to improve that one, or perhaps at best this one (since that Wiki and this one have the same alphabet and lineage), it also then shows there's nothing for us to accept it, let alone peg for notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION: for @Northamerica1000, @SwisterTwister -- are IPs allowed to nominate AFDs, CFDs, etc? In this case, one did. Quis separabit? 02:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually @Alwhorl is not an IP but it was as an IP (User:157.253.211.192) -- probably got logged out w/o realizing -- that the AFD process was done. SO I guess, it's OK. Quis separabit? 02:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @[email protected]: I have added the unsigned template atop to provide more context. This nomination was created by a registered user. In answer to your question anyway, Wikipedia:Deletion process has nothing prohibiting IPs from nominating articles for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000 -- OK, thanks for the 411. In any event I realize that, as I stated above, @Alwhorl is not an IP, just did the the AFD process without being logged in. Quis separabit? 02:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~as insufficiently notable as a~~ — does not rise to threshold of NOTABILITY as a musician; adopt @SwisterTwister's rationale. Quis separabit? 02:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I have lived in Colombia for seven years and never heard of the guy. The article was created by a Romanian editor, most likely as a result of Mazo's guest appearance on the single "Señor Loco" by Romanian singer Elena Gheorghe. But I don't think he's had a hit in Colombia. Richard3120 (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:08, 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 redirect to The Monkees discography#Compilation albums . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

25th Anniversary Collection (The Monkees album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album with references only from other wikis. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be the case, I do feel that the article just needs some added references, or some more work and it will be fine. I do have my reasons for opposing the deletion of this article, but I'm finding it difficult to express them into words. I do feel that the article should be kept, and if it doesn't, there should be some way to add the existing information elsewhere. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 01:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably be added to the band's article somewhere. --MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 01:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly by shoehorning the respective song information into the articles with the information of those songs. Unlike The Beatles where almost every song has their own page, most of the Monkees songs are covered by the albums they originated from. For example, Most of these songs don't have their own page. They simply share a page with the article page of the album they originated from. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 02:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not convey notability. If the album is not part of their actual catalog, it should be deleted. Otherwise, it can be added to The Monkees discography#Compilation albums and redirected. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'll be honest that I remain opposed to the deletion of this article, I think that if a deletion or re-directing is really necessary, I think the latter would be a more suitable option. I mean it wouldn't be the first time an article that was not deemed worthy would be re-directed to a related article. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:52, 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 18:31, 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 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Monkees discography#Compilation albums - The album itself appears to have little interest by reviewers and such, probably because it just collects previously made works that already appeared in other albums. Without critical commentary on the album, as an album, it doesn't really deserve a standalone article. Fieari (talk) 04:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Monkees discography#Compilation albums. A greatest hits album which was released during a band's active career, which often has one or two or three newly-recorded songs on it of which at least one is often released as a new single, is typically eligible for inclusion under the same standards as a conventional studio album — but the kind of "catalogue reissue because original albums are mostly out of print" compilation that is compiled as a cash-in 10 or 20 years after the band broke up, and which accordingly features no new or previously unreleased music, is rarely notable enough in its own right to warrant its own standalone article. And the sourcing here, which fails WP:USERG pretty much right across the board, is not remotely solid enough to make this one an exception to that rule — lesser known alternate mixes of already-released songs are not enough, in and of themselves, to claim that the album actually has "new" music on it. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Monkees discography#Compilation albums Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 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 Minor Passions characters. with the understanding it should be a very short mention there,Abba or ¡Bozzio! please cary it out. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Vanderheusen[edit]

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

This article fails WP:FICT, WP:NOTE and WP:RS. Limited evidence of independent notability. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Passions characters and cast unless there is any evidence of notability forthcoming. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that; a merge to Minor Passions characters would probably be better. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @J Milburn: I agree with your vote to merge to Minor Passions characters as it does seem the most appropriate course of action. Aoba47 (talk) 04:36, 10 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 18:31, 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 02:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minor Passions characters. There is no information about Vanderheusen currently on that article, so a simple redirect is not appropriate for attribution reasons. ¡Boz zio! 04:36, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Catwalk (whaling)[edit]

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

No sources found to establish notability. Unreferenced since November 2006. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It should be added to Wiktionary if sources can be found, and if a glossary of whaling terms is ever created could be redirected there. ¡Boz zio! 04:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There were some vague uses of the term in books about whaling, but like Bozzio says it belongs at Wiktionary if anywhere. Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable WP:DICDEF. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:56, 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. Salting may be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Watchfinder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Written like an advertisement, previously deleted.

Note of full disclosure: I was made aware of this page because I have previously written an article on Bob's Watches and someone found this article and noticed its promotional tone which violates guidlines. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC) (COI amended 21:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Just commercial blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. purely promotional article about promotional website, DGG ( talk ) 07:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I note that there do seem to be a small number of citations that MIGHT convey notability... but the problem is that this page is so severely an advertisement that even if it is notable, there's nothing to salvage for a real article. So even if notability applies, I'm actually going to buck my long-standing trend of avoiding WP:TNT, and say that WP:TNT applies here IFF notability is actually established. Delete without prejudice for being recreated WITHOUT being an advertisement and firmly establishing notability with real, valid, reliable sources. Fieari (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO as "corporate spam" of which section "Buy Back Guarantee" is just one example. Salting may be a good idea, to avoid wasting volunteer editors' time in an event of likely recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 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 delete. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calm Down It's Monday[edit]

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

Delete. Band with no particularly strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. While they do technically pass the criterion of having two independently notable members, that's really the only one they pass — their only release under this name was a two-song single that wasn't particularly successful, and although they did play a few live shows under this name there's no evidence of them undertaking a major tour geographically broad or widely covered enough to satisfy the touring criterion. Very little genuinely reliable source coverage exists about this at all, in fact — the only source cited here is a (deadlinked) article which mentioned this project's existence only by way of a side note in an article about Doiron's concurrent solo album, and I can't find anything stronger on either Google or ProQuest. And since an article still has to be supported by RS coverage before NMUSIC is actually passed, nominal passage of a criterion is not an inclusion freebie for an article that's this poorly sourced and unfixable. Further, there's an WP:XY issue here with competing potential redirect targets — while Julie Doiron is more famous than Frederick Squire, the project primarily involved Squire's songs rather than Doiron's, so they both have strong redirect claims (and in the fairly unlikely event that anybody actually does directly search for this as a title in its own right, both Doiron's and Squire's articles will come up in the search results anyway.) Their articles can certainly both mention this (and already directly link to each other anyway, since this wasn't even the only thing they ever did together), but there's not really much substance or sourcing available about this to hang a standalone article on. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 8 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 19:59, 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 01:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Bueller? Bearcat (talk) 06:20, 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 speedy delete. Criterion A7 clearly applies: there was no assertion of significance or importance of this local church. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Embassy Waterloo[edit]

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

Non-notable church. Speedy tag deleted by user with no other edits. agtx 01:39, 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 redirect to Original Concept. History retained. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 03:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T-Money (rapper)[edit]

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

According to the article, "T-Money (born Tyrone Kelsie, January 4, year withheld) is an American rapper who was one of the leading pioneers in the rap industry with the group Original Concept. He was a vital player in the evolution of hip hop as one of the original innovators of the sound and the scene, extending into the modern rap genre."

If this is true, then he should have an article much before 2016. And he is not in the news which makes it fail WP:NMUSIC. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Smells like a hoax. I don't believe any of the sources - David Gerard (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Past member of Original Concept? "T-Money - went on to become another host for Yo! MTV Raps."(not cited, though)※〶 10:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Not a hoax. There are plenty of sources out there that verify ~~not only that he exists but that he meets WP:NMUSICIAN.~~ that he exists. These include the following: [11] [12] [13] [14] Everymorning (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first and third mentions aren't cites, and the other two are passing mentions that he worked on Yo MTV Raps. That doesn't pass WP:MUSBIO. Or WP:BLP - remember, for a BLP we need the actual sources right there in the article for it to be kept - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although the sources I listed clearly establish that he exists and that most (if not all) of the contents of the article are true, I have since changed my mind and concluded they don't establish notability per the guidelines cited above, as they don't provide significant coverage of him. Accordingly, I have stricken and rewritten my original keep vote and now think this page should be redirected to Original Concept. Everymorning (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Original Concept. Verifiable [15], even if he doesn't qualify for his own entry under WP:MUSBIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ I'm going to reach out to this first-time editor and see if we can get the article in slightly better shape. Right now it has some problems that are pretty standard for those new to WP (original research, referencing, peacock language), but also quite a few print sources on a pre-internet topic, which we need more of. It'd be a shame to lose them if the subject turns out to be notable. Will check back into AfD with an update in a couple days either way. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Update~~ to say I'm in touch with the editor and have explained why the interview (basis for much of entry) doesn't work as a WP source. Have requested ed cut back to just what's confirmed in reliable sources, and add any other sources s/he may have, so we can get a better picture on whether this is a keep, merge, redirect if not much left to merge, etc. Ed replied promptly so I'm hopeful we may have progress in a few days, would appreciate AfD staying open a bit longer to give new ed chance to get a handle on this. (My view's informed by my sense that the article actually is deeply researched and very likely accurate--the problem is just that it's original research. Might do better published in a secondary source we could then cite! But I don't think we need to worry about disseminating incorrect information by leaving it up a few extra days.) Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and preserve edit history. Sorry to say I haven't heard further from ed, and I can't tell on my own how much of the entry really comes from the print sources listed, or if those are just trivial mentions and the entry was basically filled out with the editor's own interview of the subject, which certainly doesn't go to notability, and would largely (entirely?) need to be cut from a BLP. I'm not sure the subject isn't notable, but in absence of proof he is, I think redirecting is the right call. Certainly if editor or others come back to work on it and can provide more sources, then great. Working with Dr. Dre and MTV on hiphop in the '80s is potentially a very important piece of music history; we just need the WP account of it to meet verifiability standards. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:00, 29 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 not to have an article, no consensus to create a redirect. Sandstein 18:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthophobia[edit]

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

nn coinage, fails WP:MEDRS Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 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 01:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of phobias. Maybe someone is knowledgable about those anchored redirects? I always like those, but have never looked into them. But I failed to find any sourcing for this, just some strange horror films. Similar to this deletion discussion here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amychophobia (2nd nomination). Yvarta (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete zero MEDRS sources - no reviews in pubmed; none in PsyNet (can't save searches there- that is just a link to the search page). just another pseudopychnology "fun with greek" term that gets kicked around in garbage lists on the internet. Delete and salt like the rest. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of phobias. It appears to have at least one book source. It may not be a medical term, but it does have at least one cited reference, so it probably wouldn't hurt to show up on the big list. Definitely doesn't need its own article, of course, but deletion isn't necessary as redirects are WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 03:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if I am to believe GoogleBooks, the entire entry from the cited reference is "antophobia Fear of flowers. See also Flowers, fear of." So I do not buy that as a serious claim that the word is in use; hence, not even a redirect. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:22, 29 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.