Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 September	10 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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Timotić[edit]

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

Milan Timotić is said by the one external link to have been a popular singer in Serbia before WW2. I could find no English language sources which supported notability.Perhaps someone can find non-English sources to support notability. Having recorded several records is not sufficient to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). Edison (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Edison (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as insufficiently notable singer. Quis separabit? 02:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searches did not turn up anything which showed the notability of this singer. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing any signs of improvement from an English POV and although there's more information at the Serbian Wiki, it's not much help and it's best WP:TNT and start when better. SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel David Becker[edit]

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

This 28 year old actor appeared in the film Were the World Mine in 2008, and has appeared since in commercials. He does not appear to satisfy WP:NACTOR at this point in his career. Edison (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability seems a stretch at this point, I can't even find a local profile article on him, no less two by regional newspapers (which is usually the threshold for me thinking we need to dig more).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than some unsurprising coverage here and there and there are no outstanding roles to suggest moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Cox[edit]

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

Canadian actress failing WP:NACTOR. Only 1 somewhat mayor role in a low-budget movie (and a few minor roles per IMDB). Nothing in-depth found via Google (a mention in the Baltimore Sun seems to be about a different Erica Cox, but is very brief anyway). GermanJoe (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 11:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply not much for an article at this time. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a few reviews for Bitten – which was a terrible film, by the way – but there isn't much coverage of her independent of that one film. I guess someone could redirect this to Bitten (film) if they wanted to. It seems to be her biggest role. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Bitten (film). Not enough for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect it at will, but I'm not convinced it is necessary. Courcelles (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-NewsIt![edit]

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

Unremarkable wingnut blog that is "internet famous" (i.e. briefly mentioned) for releasing the photos of Kendrick Johnson's autopsy. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep notable for multiple incidents, mentioned by many reliable sources (although admittedly not a topic of in depth discussion at any of them) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A couple brief mentions of this anonymous attack blog (all of which treat it as a fringe curiosity) is not enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. There is no in-depth discussion of the site or its creator; we know only that it's described as "a right-wing blog devoted to disputing facts around the shooting of black people" and that its creator has been suspended from Twitter for harassment. This seems thin gruel on which to base an actual article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gaijin42. Yes, the gruel is thin but it's the best we have. Readers with an interest in Shaun King (activist) will want some sort of background on this site due to its central role in the racial identity controversy.--Nowa (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for a redirect, not for a badly-sourced article on a website of no demonstrable notability. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect where?--Nowa (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources not sufficient to grant it independent notability from the subjects of its articles. Artw (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of inherent or sustained notability. The little coverage it has is very recent and not directly related to the site itself. GraniteSand (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure was going to say Redirect to Shaun King (activist) per WP:ONEVENT - if the other events mentioned by Gajin are significant then this is a nexus concept, and perhaps should belong as a section in Fringe right-wing blogs or some such. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -Even the 'source' that used this blog, is not a reliable source. It's not notable at all and should have been CSDed. Dave Dial (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Non-notable blog. Although a number of reliable references mention the blog, the coverage of the blog itself is not significant enough. Perhaps the blog could be mentioned in Shaun King (activist) and Death of Kendrick Johnson. --Edcolins (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding leadership theory[edit]

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

Nothing changed since prev nom: remained thoroughly nonnotable (and I's say trivial) theory, with 1-2 occasional mentions. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not a notable book. The concept itself doesn't seem notable either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to fail WP:GNG, also looks to rely entirely on primary sources. I noticed that there are a surprising number of ghits for some of the article's text. Given the age of the article (and its previous home in the Leadership article), I'm assuming this would've been looked into last time around and found that it was the other sources that copy this (vs. a WP:COPYVIO)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lynx Complex[edit]

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

Article does not contain any sources, only external link is now invalid, and there is no sources or information online stating the building was ever constructed. FirstDrop87 (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Abandoned project. It did exist, but never took off and no evidence of particular notability. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Search engines returned zero hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Whatever the guidelines say, there's no chance this will be deleted. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patharkandi railway station[edit]

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

Non-notable railway station. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOFEAT. Attempt to redirect to Patharkandi was reverted. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no such thing as a non-notable rail station. WP wisely decided a long time ago that rail stations articles are to be kept as indicated in WP:OUTCOMES and therefore we don't have to flesh out and discuss the merit of tens of thousands that exist and editors' time can be better spent on creating articles and improving existing ones, not to mention avoiding animosity between editors.--Oakshade (talk) 01:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus for at least a decade has been that all railway stations that verifiably exist are notable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Consensus is that all railway stations are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Oakshade, Thryduulf, and Necrothesp: Per WP:BEFORE, I thoroughly checked WP:OUTCOMES before nominating. Despite what Oakshade asserted above, under Rail transport, it says that Subway and railway lines (not stations) often survive AfD and to see the essay at Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations). That latter page then says that for stations you should either follow WP:GNG or you should keep the article if enough verifiable information is available for a comprehensive article (which is not the case here). That page goes on to say "If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality or parent company. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all." Since only directory-type information was available, I thought I was erring on the side of inclusionism by proposing a redirect. If the decade-long consensus is that every little concrete slab next to a set of train tracks deserves an article, it should really be listed in WP:OUTCOMES and/or WP:GEOFEAT. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus doesn't need to be recorded for it to be consensus. See many previous AfD discussions on stations. They're never deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only time I've seen articles at AfD about verifiably real rail transport stations end as anything other than "keep" is when articles about a group of stations are merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they're on. For heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) the latter almost always happens only if the stations are simply proposed/planned, or existed only briefly many years ago. None of that is true in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "That latter page then says that for stations you should either follow WP:GNG or you should keep the article if enough verifiable information is available for a comprehensive article (which is not the case here)". Of course there's enough verifiable information available for a comprehensive article. When wast he station built? (1925 apparently) Who built it? How much did it cost? What company ran trains to it? How often? What are the usership statistics over the decades? What investments have been made in the station? What trains serve it now? What economic impact has it had on the region? This is all information available somewhere because it's impossible for it not to be available. I personally don't know where because it's a part of the world I'm and most English language WP editors are unfamiliar with and it's hard to know exactly where to find or even look for such information. An operating station of this age in the US or UK would never even be considered for deletion. Might this be a case of systemic bias? --Oakshade (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just noting that the main reason I undid the redirection of the article is that (according to the infobox, at least) this station has existed since 1925, wherefore it seemed likely to me that more information was likely to be available in Assamese or other Indian sources. Deor (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Usual practice is to keep all train station articles. Certainly is the practice for the New York City Subway. Another example of WP:GEOBIAS AusLondonder (talk) 09:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Smith[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.

Keep. He was the top-rated kicking prospect in the US in 2010 and played for two top level NCAA programs (UCLA and Oklahoma State). A quick search turns up significant coverage in mainstream media outlets, including: (1) this from The Reporter (same also also published here), (2) this from the Los Angeles Times, (3) this from the Los Angeles Times, (4) this, (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this from the Tulsa World, (8) this from America Sport News, (9) this from The Oklahoman, (10) this from The Orange County Register and (11) this from the Los Angeles Daily News. Enough to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Cbl62 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: Query - This appears to be a relatively close judgment call. Several of the article linked above appear to be routine transactional coverage about his transfer from UCLA to Oklahoma State, and the two most significant pieces appear to be from minor media outlets. Can you tell me what you know about AmericaSportNews.com -- is it some sort of blog or a professionally written/edited media outlet? I could not find any information about it on the website, and I think the subject may need that coverage to get over the GNG hump. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any more about the ASN source, but the coverage appears to be sufficient IMO without it. I've added a couple more sources as well, including some additional pieces with depth from the Tulsa World, which is a major metropolitan daily. Cbl62 (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Disregarding AmericaSportNews.com, the four new sources added by Cbl62 above are more than enough significant coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I hope these sources find their way into the article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 04:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J Slater[edit]

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

Nik software is notable. But only being the CEO of that company does not make the subject of the article notable. Google search results only some trivial quotations and passing mentions. Variation 25.2 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. He was not "only being CEO". Clearly a person did something notable. People are notable for their deeds, not only for their bare asses. - üser:Altenmann >t 22:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep He is clearly a Notable person with lot of media coverages.--Khocon (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Notwithstanding the two editors above, a News search does not turn up anything to show notability. He's quoted in a few articles, many blogs and quite a few press releases. Not a single in-depth article on him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose as I see nothing better to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete much of the coverage is about his company rather than him. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LibStar. I cannot find in-depth coverage of Slater specifically, only coverage of Nik Software. Jujutacular (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kent County League. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Little Sharsted F.C.[edit]

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

Low-level amateur village football team which has never played in a national league or cup competition, the long-established benchmark of notability, additionally no evidence of in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources to get it past the general notability guideline. Article was tagged for lack of notability and having only primary sources, article creator removed these but had only added links to the official site of the league which the club plays in and a very brief match preview on the site of another team in the league, neither of which is independent or showing significant coverage. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kent County League, possible search term but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 18:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - just about a plausible search term, but the club are not notable enough for a standalone article per WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birdville ISD Fine Arts/Athletics Complex[edit]

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

it's a high school athletic field, nothing more. vanity article John from Idegon (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Nothing notable about this high school sports complex. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is now written, the sources don't support notability. If sources were found I'd obviously change my position. High school football stadiums can be notable, and perhaps this one is--but I can't tell from the content of the article. Userfy would be an acceptable choice if someone wanted to take custody of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I live near here and although I'm not familiar with this, I'm not seeing any improvement and notability and, if notable and needed, this can be mentioned at the district's article. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after inserting a brief description into the articles about the ISD and three affiliated high schools. Subject does not satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable source. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jagannath Kuberappa Dange[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Dange is an assistant professor who has published a great deal, but with no evidence that he has made any significant contributions to his field. Other than the link to his bio at his present employer, the article is unreferenced. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is nothing but a CV. Clicked on a couple of articles and they are not reliable journals. Research Front and International Multidisciplinary e –Journal are nothing but, "pay us and will print you" journals. Bgwhite (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bgwhite and Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't establish significance beyond being prolific. clpo13_(talk) 06:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see nothing to suggest improvement and I'm also inviting DGG and David Eppstein for comment. SwisterTwister talk 05:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wouldn't be shocked to have this article some day, but too soon now. Courcelles (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anood Al Obaidly[edit]

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

Too soon. She may be notable someday, but right now she really doesn't have the depth of coverage needed for WP:GNG. ubiquity (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anood Al Obaidly is a known emerging artist in UAE, and we need to include her in the list of the Emirati artists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donalmikel (talk • contribs) 08:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the deletion notice by mistake. Now, am keeping it until this discussion is settled. donalmikel —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been edited by a minor change in its references and content. It may meets the wikipedia criteria. donalmikel

Is there still an option to rethink about deleting the page? I think the recent changes does meet the wikipedia criteria. donalmikel —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I still think it is too soon. The artist's main case for notability seems to be that she was one of fifteen artists selected, in one year, as an emerging artist. Wikipedia wants articles on artists who have already emerged. Of the other four references, three just indicate that she has been included in exhibitions, and one is a feature article that does not explain what she is known for, other than being a local artist. Here are the criteria for notability in an artist, according to WP:NARTIST:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I do not believe the subject satisfies any of these criteria. ubiquity (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual Arts-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please note Donalmikel is a single purpose account. Donalmikel, deletion discussions usually run for seven days. I vote delete and agree with nom that it is WP:TOOSOON, and also WP:WAYTOOSOON. There are one or two decent refs, but these do not amount to significant coverage. New Media Theorist (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the article says, she is an "Emerging Artist". New Media Theorist (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She just finished a BFA and has had a few small exhibitions. This doesn't pass GNG nor WP:ARTIST at this time. Obviously WP:TOOSOON with absolutely no prejudice to recreating the article in a few years if notability is established then. freshacconci talk to me 01:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 DESiegel as a blatant hoax (G3).(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd 2: Growing Up[edit]

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

I was endorsing the PROD but RHaworth PRODed this in May 2010 and but there's simply nothing good much less for improvement and notability (the IMDb link shown in the history simply takes you to the first film. Also pinging past users RadioFan, MarnetteD and TheGGoose. SwisterTwister talk 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be a hoax upon looking up this film's name with quotations on Google; the results are fake-ish and aren't valuable. It's worth noting that in the talk page an IP user called the film a hoax, but unfortunately the message didn't spread. TheGGoose (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no sign of this purported sequel film in reliable sources, nor is it listed (or even mentioned) on IMDb at either the page for the original film (where you'd expect to see a "Movie Connections" link, at least) or at Todd Bosley's page, even though he's the supposed star of the purported sequel. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Films-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the topic not being verifiable and likely a hoax. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a clear hoax. In addition to points previously made, the alleged Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic ratings do not exist. Calamondin12 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This article was originally created on 6 May 2010; as an apparent hoax that has lasted in article space for more than 5 years, its next (and final) stop should be the archive described in the section entitled "Suggestions to administrators on archiving hoaxes" at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia.--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

Delete as even if there might have been rumors about a Lloyd sequel, nothing has ever materialized. At the kindest this fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Chang[edit]

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

Orphaned page, no reference, can't find any information. Timmyshin (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even clear who it is: as it suggests the name is easily confused and without further information such as nature or detail of his works, his name in Chinese or where he lived it is impossible to identify him. A search turns up lots of other people with matching or partially matching names.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like JohnBlackburne, I'm not sure who this is. Difficult to research notability, not even sure this particular person exists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a largely useless stub. No objection to re-creation if there is something substantial to say or an image to be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Found one source: [1]. But it says little, only he is the son of someone called Wu Zhen, but clearly not our Wu Zhen as there are centuries between them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The P-Principle[edit]

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

No indication that this principle is notable in any way. Article is original research posted by the creator of said principle. Prod contested by author without improving the article. --Finngall ^talk 16:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. While searches on News and Highbeam returned a couple of hits, they were not about this p-principle. Same with Scholar and books. JSTOR returned zip. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Credit-Land.com[edit]

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

This website/company has carefully cultivated a presence on the internet, but as far as I can tell, it's all smoke and mirrors and SEO. Let's look at the six sources currently cited.

1 A Forbes article. Great, right? Except not. This is actually a blog post masquerading as an article. See the tiny blurb on top: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Clicking on the contributor's name to learn more about him 404s. Clearly no notability is conferred by this source.

2 Primary source. Next.

3 Oh look, it's another fake Forbes article. As least this contributor has a bio page. It doesn't matter, though, because the website in question is barely mentioned in this article. And by barely mentioned, I mean not mentioned. There's a single link in the article, "apply for a credit card", that links to credit-land.com, for reasons unknown.

4 A fake Forbes article? You don't say! Written by the same person as before. This time there's an entire quote from a credit-land.com analyst. Needless to say, this is not enough.

5 This is an in-depth "interview" with the editor-in-chief of Credit-Land.com. The interviewer is The Intuit Small Business Blog. The person behind that is a single journalist called Susan Johnston. here is her website, and here is the blog itself. No notability to be found anywhere.

6 I'm starting to really dislike these "articles".

I apologize for the snark. Personal opinion bleedthrough. That said, I think we can fairly objectively establish that none of those sources qualify as reliable.

The good news is that I can find about 20 more "sources" like that without trying. Credit-land.com has really done a lot of work, kudos to their PR team. The bad news is that every single one (that I have found) is paper-thin; lacking content, or reliability, or both. This sort of thing is great for getting search engines to like you. Unfortunately, here we have humans looking at the sources, and these do not remotely pass muster. Ashenai (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know exactly where to talk to u, try to do it here. So, why in the article of some sites from the same category (for example this site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Karma) the same reference to Forbes is ok? And some more references to their own(!) blog (Credit Karma Blog) and some other sources that looks like unreliable too (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-30/a-free-credit-report-with-no-strings-attached-dot-honest). Are they more reliable and if so why (for me to know how to make my article about CRedit Land more reliable) or this site (and some other from the category as well) are treated differently?? I understand in general your point of view but what I can't understand is whyyy other sites are ok with even absolutely the same references (like Forbes blog). Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas A 2 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(copying this reply from my talk page) Just because other stuff exists, that doesn't mean it's okay! Wikipedia is imperfect, and we don't see everything. I don't have time to do a detailed check on Credit Karma right now, but I will later; and yeah if the source is bad it needs to be removed.

That said, the main problem with the Credit-Land.com article isn't that it has bad sources; that would not be a valid reason for deletion. The problem is that it has no good (reliable) sources. Not a single one. And I couldn't find any on Google, either. Credit Karma does have sources that look okay at first glance (although I might revise this opinion once I go through them in more detail.) If it turns out that none of its sources are good, either, then I will nominate it for deletion as well. --Ashenai (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow. Nice job by Ashenai. If I had simply glanced at this article, I wouldn't have thought twice about keeping. But looking into the sources, their analysis is spot on. In the AfC process, we come across these all the time. I wonder how many of these types of articles exist on the mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than some more passing mentions. Feel free to draft and userfy to userspace if needed, SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Star Wars substances[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I cannot think of any reasonable reason for this article to exist in a general purpose encyclopedia - it belongs in a specialist wiki such as Wikia or somewhere else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is cruft at its best. Or worst. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This isn't the list we're looking for. Move along. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge parts of it into List of fictional medicines and drugs (and then redirect). --Fixuture (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it could be conceivably redirected there, but even that seems like a long shot. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like List of fictional medicines and drugs and list of fictional beverages have already been populated with the entries from this list. That's probably where they belong. We don't need lists of every single prop used in Star Wars. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content is more suitable for Wikia, not Wikipedia. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 18:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete better suited for Wookiepedia. Artw (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unencyclopedic fan cruft. Carrite (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESAL since there do not seem to be reliable sources listing items under this specific topic. I could see certain substances from this fictional universe being mentioned in broader-scope list articles if sources do exist, but this particular scope does not appear justified. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Restifo[edit]

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

A succession of very minor roles, and nothing more. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found nothing to suggest improvement and none of the linking articles seem convincing enough to move there. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Save: I don't know how it was that they came to that conclusion of said that the actress didn't have important roles. But Restifo is well known for his roles in telenovelas La mujer de Judas where stood out as co-star, she was the protagonist of the telenovela "Viva la Pepa" which was produced by Radio Caracas Television, also was a co-star in the telenovela Hay amores que matan, In 1996 starred in the telenovela "La llaman Mariamor". Excuse me but in my opinion the article is very notable, she is a well-known Venezuelan actress.--Philip J Fry • (talk) 11:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources have been added by Philip J Fry, but the article remains a stub (2 sentences) with lists. I do hope that content will be carried over into the article from the references. Also, the lists themselves need to be referenced, or that data should be removed. LaMona (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She appears to have had many supporting roles. Ordinary editing, with a better translator, and some additional sources, could turn this into a "start" article. I've seen much worse. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not the strongest article notability wise, but sources do exist and I imagine that more can be found. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Narrowly meets WP:NACTOR AusLondonder (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Straight headcount would call this NC, but most of the Delete arguments are based on the idea that English-language wikipedia should not be covering literature which is not available in English. I can find no policy which supports that argument. Certainly, we have policy which says non-english sources are OK. I can't find any policy one way or the other about non-english subjects, so I assume they are valid topics (if you know of such a policy, please cite it on my talk page).

There's three completely orthogonal concepts here: what language the encyclopedia is written in, what language the literary work being covered is written in, and what language the citations are in which support a claim of notability. Only the first one is required to be English for the English-language Wikipedia.

I will admit I've been moved artificially toward deciding on Keep in an attempt to counter Wikipedia:Systemic bias, but only a little bit. The only other possible close here would be NC and in general I don't lose a lot of sleep over deciding between Keep and NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS: There's certainly nothing in this AfD which would prevent this being moved to a different title, if those who are subject matter experts come to some consensus that a different translation would be better. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Sky (novel)[edit]

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

There is no evidence either here on in the Ukrainian article that the novel is notable. An earlier book of his apparently reached no.2 in a book store list. There is no evidence this one did. The 2nd and 3rd sections here are completely uncited. section 2 would appear unciteable. There's nothing additional in the Uk article that could be used. No need for a merge as its already covered adequately on the article on the author. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I can't speak well for Ukrainian sources so I'll invite Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll look for sources and see if it meets notability for books. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. He appears to be a very popular author in Ukraine, sufficient coverage of his new book. I've added sources and cleaned it up. Also very odd connection to a real crash that brought more interest in the book (and apparently even bizarre conspiracy theories) - in his novel, a Ukrainian jet collides with a snowplow and crashes at a French airport; two months after the book came out, a French jet collided with a snowplow at a Russian airport, killing everyone on board. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I realize this will anger some folks, but I see no reason to have an article in @en Wikipedia for a book that has not been translated into English, and appears to have no cultural or social affect in English-speaking countries. I would even question using a translated title for a book that has not been translated (since, if it were, there is no telling what title the publisher would choose to use). I can't imagine why this article would be in @en WP except for purposes of promotion. Readers of Russian and Ukrainian can find information about the author and his writings in @ru and @uk WP. LaMona (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not particularly familiar with Ukrainian sources, but they look reliable enough and there seems to be enough of them to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - LaMona makes a compelling argument here. Kraxler (talk) 01:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to disagree. The notability of an article is not affected by the language the sources are in so long as they are reliable, and there is no policy on Wikipedia that states that we should delete articles whose impact falls primarily outside of the English-speaking world. I'm also going to note that following LaMona's logic is going to strongly promote systemic bias, something that should be discouraged. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the sources, It's about the book not having been published in English and not having an English title which makes this title WP:OR. That has nothing to do with systemic bias, I'm in fact already a bit tired to hear from !voters who try to squeeze into Wikipedia their favorite non-notable subjects that people who disagree with them are trying to promote systemic bias. Please avoid assuming bad faith.

Per WP:TRANSCRIPTION, faithfully translating something from a foreign language does not constitute original research (this may be stretching the policy a bit, but the title is sourced to numerous reliable sources that cover the book in extended detail). Also, I really do not appreciate being accused of violating WP:GF. I pointed out what I considered to be a serious, unintended flaw in your argument; nowhere did I make a personal attack against you or your motives for making the argument in the first place.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on sources, that's one of the WP:Five pillars of Wikipedia. There is no source for the translated title. The title is translated, not transcribed. I suggest you ask an English teacher what the difference is. I also suggest you stop talking gibberish like "I'm not particularly familiar with Ukrainian sources" followed by "the title is sourced to numerous reliable sources that cover the book in extended detail" So what is it, can you read Ukrainian, or can't you? Kraxler (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My google translator translates "Жорстоке небо" to "Ill Sky", so much for a "faithful" translation. Kraxler (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Seconding SoE's sentiments, while adding that there is a plethora of Wiki articles in English about foreign films-the cinematic equiv of notable books that have yet to be translated. SnowdenFan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF again? Well, name one Wikipedia article with these characteristics: A foreign-language film that has not been shown in any English-speaking country so that the title is a translation but not the official English-language release title; and no English-speaking source ever used the title, or reviewed the film, or mentioned the film. Kraxler (talk) 00:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PerWP:NOENG citing sources outside of the English language is acceptable if no English sources exist in its place. The thing being described by the name meets notability requirements, and disagreements over an article’s name is not justification for deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you can't cite one example of the alleged "plethora"? I'm not talking about the sources, they may look fine to somebody who can read Cyrillic script, but the title of this article is WP:Original research, forbidden per Wikipedia policy. Please note that "policy" is a step above "guideline". Kraxler (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - SnowdenFan and Spirit of Eagle make good points. However, Kraxler's points to me are the over-riding factor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After further research, I found WP:TRANSLITERATE, a policy which states that “Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated” and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)# No established usage in English-language sources, a guideline which notes that its possible for notable subjects to have failed to receive attention in the English speaking world and to not have English names. This should solve any disputes over title and original research. I’ll also admit that I may have previously attempted to force some policies and guidelines that didn’t really fit. However, we now have a title (or an ability to get one) in line with policy for an article with sources whose reliability no one has objected to, and that a keep is the outcome most in-line with Wikipedia policy. Unless anyone has any objections to the above comment, I’ll be withdrawing myself from this AfD in the hopes that cooler heads will step in. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY [2], multiple reliable sources provided, enough to pass GNG. The side argument about the title is clearly inappropriate here and it belongs to the talk page. For the record, I agree the current title is wrong and the page should be renamed with the trasliterated title (in this case Zhorstoke nebo), but having a wrong title is not a valid argument for deletion and once notability was established we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Cavarrone 21:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's notable in another language, but not available in English, then English WP might be the only resource for an English speaker to find out about the book. If the title is wrong then I agree with the above argument of renaming it. Figure81 (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Max Kidruk, the author who is clearly notable. Comments above are frequently about the notability of the author, not this book. The existance of an article on another Wikipedia about a topic is not dispositive of its notability here, as the English Wikipedia oftn has different standards of notability. In the article there is no claim made about the notability of this book. This is just his ninth novel. Fails WP:NBOOK, whether looking at Ukrainian or English sources. The article is only a plot summary, undocumented material about how long it took to write, and a coincidential subsequent event unrelated to the book. Redirect is appropriate. @Figure81: Your point about access would be solved by a redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pathpartner Technology[edit]

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

non notable. Interesting wording from the single purpose account who contributed the article : "Pathpartner seems to provide product engineering services", "Pathpartner has been seen working closely with semiconductor companies"-- Isee that as an attempt to pretend to be nonpromotional. Awards are very minor. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my first searches instantly found PR and other self-generated content here and at browser. SwisterTwister talk 18:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where can I get the complete list of discussion comments on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinaymk (talk • contribs) 05:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Nasscom EMERGE 50 awards are notable awards given in India and Dun and Bradstreet awards are also reputed and not bought over the counter. I've removed the other line refered in the comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinaymk (talk • contribs) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vinaymk All comments about that will be here and what would help the article is better third-party coverage such as news and magazine. SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SwisterTwister. I've added press coverage from engadget, siliconindia and dnaindia - which are credible news sources, with decent readership, links from Xilinx and TI are also credible third-party source I believe. Vinaymk (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't put much faith in the TI and Xilinx links as "sources". They are business partners, so of course the source is going to try to make the company look good. Those "sources" will mean something if you are in the semiconductor business; a general reader will have no idea what they mean. Still lacks notability outside of the very narrow world it inhabits of writing internal code for Integrated Circuits. Now if the New York Times or the Guardian has something to say, that would be different.New Media Theorist (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semiconductors is an important field in modern world, dnaindia is a credible online news media in India and engadget means a lot to techies. I want to believe that wikipedia represents everything and everyone in this world Vinaymk (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches returned nothing to show that this company meets WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Kraxler (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Gosse[edit]

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

Professor does not pass the WP:Professor test. His merits as seen in the page are not extraordinary in the sense he would be a major figure in geology or any science. Lappspira (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Normally I would say that the Canada Research Chair is a pass of WP:PROF#C5, but that criterion is really only intended to handle the case of chairs given to full professors. In this case he was given it at the same time that he was promoted from assistant professor to associate, and now (14 years later) he is strangely still stuck at the associate level. Nevertheless, I think his citation record [3] is clearly good enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im starting to have dubts. The nomination was made with the information available in the article page. But now I see he has a "Canada Research Chair" and appears, by citations, to be an authority on a topic. Lappspira (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein's arguments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New Media Theorist (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of observatory codes#200–299. Overall consensus is to redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grorudalen Optical Observatory[edit]

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

Small-time observatory with only some geocities websites to even show that it exists. Does not appear to meet GNG. Primefac (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The observatory has gotten some credit in scientific journals. Unfortunately there are simply no reliable sources available that can verify the information in the article, or that someone could use to improve it. DPRoberts534 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Instead of deleting the article should be expanded and improved. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbuddy9, how, and with what information? Primefac (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I can't find anything of substance. -- Elmidae (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-> Redirect, following reasoning below; seems the better option.-- Elmidae (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to "List of observatory codes#200–299" where it is already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "List of observatory codes#200–299" where it is already listed. Basic info, like observatory code and country in which it is located, is verifiable, so redirect seems fine to me. --Mark viking (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Frasier. Swarm ♠ 04:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KACL (Frasier)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional radio station. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 03:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the multiple references to the station's call letters in various sources, at minimum I think this is appropriately kept as a redirect to Frasier (and its mention on the KACL disambiguation page should be modified accordingly) rather than deleted. Another possibility would be a selective merge of some of the content here to Minor characters on Frasier#KACL staff and professionals, where a bit of content about the station could be added as an introduction to the list of characters associated with the station. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Frasier, and change the link on List of fictional radio stations also to the show's article. KACL is only a setting on the show. The only fictional radio stations that warrant articles of their own are those which are significant entities in a show or film, such as WKRP, WENN, or WUSA. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Federation of Talent[edit]

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

No third-party reliable sources to indicate how this award meets WP:GNG notability. One of several articles created by a blocked sockpuppet apparently part of an attempt to promote a recipient of this "award." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I should've done this myself once the PROD was removed. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This also has notablity. My argument is the same as one that I rolled back the deletion template. -- Shyoon1 (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable. Pure promotional article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's simply nothing obvious to suggest improvement and at best it's a WP:TNT and can be started when better. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 He is notable per "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents" from WP:MILPEOPLE.(non-admin closure) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Campose[edit]

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

Sources are either not independent or are routine coverage. Per WP:MILPEOPLE, the Chief of Army Staff would be presumed notable, but not the Vice Chief of Army Staff. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree All Vice Chiefs of US Army , and Many other country vice chiefs have pages . For Example

Daniel B. Allyn
John F. Campbell
Eric K. Shinseki
Ronald H. Griffith
and many others have articles

KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 14:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this officer is a Lieutenant General, and usually most major generals upwards in combat arms are considered notable. He's also commanded a corps and Western Command (India). I fail to see why this officer has been nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckshot06 (talk • contribs)
Keep - one of India's top generals who has served at the highest levels would seem to meet inclusion guidelines. General and Flag Rank officers typically demonstrate notability. EricSerge (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colling Gilbert Wright & Carter[edit]

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

Not notable as I understand it, similar to the Melvin Wright discussion, including same authors. Bjornte (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe delete for now as although my usual searches found some results (News, Books, browser and highbeam), there wasn't anything convincing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything overly promotional with this entry. Well cited and sources point off site to actual articles about the firm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.185.109.71 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but keep to mind there could be better coverage and press releases are usually only used if there is no other solution as PR is simply self-generated content from the company themselves usually promotional and otherwise unusable. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly arcvertising their services, ("Attorneys at the firm accept a wide range of cases, including personal injury, wrongful death, medical malpractice, product defect, workers’ compensation, and securities and stockbroker fraud." That's a rather narrow range, when you take a close look at it...), no in-depth coverage anywhere, the sources are all connected to the firm, directories, press releases and a few trivial mentions in news about the cases, fails WP:PROMO and WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HSH.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP with no in-depth secondary sources, just a lot of articles quoting HSH.com press releases about mortgage rates, and a few WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview quotes from the vice president. The articles go into no detail about the company itself, such as would be required to source an article describing the company. McGeddon (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although my searches found some results (Books, News and browser), some of the results such as News was simply republishing data and such and not better in-depth coverage about HSH.com itself. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ray V. Smith[edit]

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

The subject appears to produce calendars featuring musicians. Plenty of refs about the musicians and very peripheral mentions on reproductions of calendars but nothing here that strikes at any significant notability. The reliability and robustness of most of the refs is also questionable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing good. SwisterTwister talk 02:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find the subject's name in any of the references listed -- they were all for products like calendars and t-shirts, but none mentioned him. A G-search on the name yields nothing that I would link to this person, not even social media sites. LaMona (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Midland_Metro_rolling_stock#T-69. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerwyn John[edit]

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

An engineer who died young and had a single tram named after him by his employers. Sad, but I can't see any way in which he could possibly be notable. Looks a bit like a memorial/tribute page. Disputed PROD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Maybe should be retitled 'Gerwyn John tram', per Wikipedia:Notability (people), 'only one notable event'. I can see how this article came about from the table in Midland_Metro_rolling_stock#T-69 in which he is the least notable person on the list. I don't know how or if this fits into Wikipedia guidelines, but the fact that his name is on a nameplate might lead people to seek information about him. --Derek Andrews (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deserves mention in Midland_Metro_rolling_stock#T-69, but not a stand alone article. EricSerge (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect over to Midland_Metro_rolling_stock#T-69 with the current article being deleted, given that the T-69 page can and should mention more about the late Mr. John but I don't think a full article necessarily is merited due to the lack of reliable source coverage CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect: I mean no disrespect, but unfortunately, I don't think the subject is notable enough for a stand alone article. A short passage could be added to the Midland Metro rolling stock#T-69 section/article, though, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y.H. Ku[edit]

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

Too few citations for an electrical engineer. Google Scholar shows highest citation count of 52 for the article "Volterra-Wiener functionals for the analysis of nonlinear systems". Doesn't pass WP:PROF or WP:GNG either. Solomon 7968 14:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 14:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Solomon 7968 14:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've started some cleanup on the article but it still needs more. Probably the nominator missed in the middle of the wall of text the fact that he was president of what a published obit calls "China's largest university"; that's an automatic pass of WP:PROF#C6. And as a member of Academia Sinica he also passes #C3. It looks likely to me that he passes #C2 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. As a member of the National Assembly of Taiwan he probably passes WP:POLITICIAN. He founded two major cultural institutions and his literary and musical works are possibly enough for notability there as well. And there's a museum dedicated to him in mainland China. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes several criteria, like WP:NACADEMICS # 6 (was president of of a major university) and WP:NPOL # 1 (was a member of a national legislative body) Kraxler (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. I have no expertise with WP:PROF but Ku clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a national legislature. Much thanks to David Eppstein for extensive improvements to the article since it was nominated. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All-Europe Player of the Year[edit]

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

Delete:Despite the glossy title this is just a selection by a sports website, Eurobasket.com, which itself struggles with notability (though to be fair it is a popular basketball website) similar to the end of season All-whatever selections of thousands of websites. It has no notability beyond the website itself (most awardees don't aknowledge the "distinction") with the lack of coverage to boot.}} ArmstrongJulian (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)--ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Every media outlet sets awards, no evidence Eurobasket's carry any extra weight/notability. Rikster2 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. No extra weight for EuroBasket awards. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person nominating the award is doing so simply because they are mad at me and I created the article and they want these deleted. Look at my talk page and you can see that. I don't like to have to say that, but it is clear.Bluesangrel (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with this article, and indeed a number of your edits, is that it doesn't answer wikipedia's notability requirements, do us all a favour and try reading the official policy that determines what should be on the site. You keep making contributions (and I use the term loosely) that are unsourced (again read the guideline) and make unsupported claims, this is not a forum or fan page but a website that aims for a certain standard yet you keep editing and acting as if it was the former. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that all my articles, including this one are sourced, and I am making no such edits as a "fan page". And I read the criteria and this article meets the standard. You simply put it up for deletion because you are mad at me, just because I asked you why you were changing dozens of articles height parameters.Bluesangrel (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you not supposed to notify people when you mark their articles for deletion? I thought that you are? ArmstrongJulian marks several articles for deletion, but never gives a notice to the creator of the article that they were marked for deletion. I thought you were supposed to do that.Bluesangrel (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN. No evidence of independent reliable sources that discuss this grouping. Granted, I might not find these on English websites, and also wouldn't know which ones are reliable. This is the difficulty with dealing with potentially notable subjects covered in predominantly non-English sources. However, no persuasive arguments have been forthcoming either.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eurobasket.com's Greek Basketball Hall of Fame[edit]

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

Delete Has no notability whatsoever outside the website who awarded it (itself barely passing notabiliy). Can find no other mentions, even by the awardees. Eurobasket.com is a decent website but that does not mean every single one of its Hall of Fames is notable, they are not. Note that the article creator was banned for disruptive editing ArmstrongJulian (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the arguments above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)--ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Every media outlet sets awards, no evidence Eurobasket's carry any extra weight/notability. Rikster2 (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No inherent notability for Eurobasket awards. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victorio Pezzolla[edit]

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

I am not finding enough sources to establish notability. This article fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 15:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now simply because I'm not much signs for improvement with a few results at Books and News including a Italian news article apparently mentioning he's a legend so it may be better to delete (WP:TNT) and start anew with better attention. It' also imaginable some sources may be offline. SwisterTwister talk 01:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Pechacek[edit]

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

Delete:Promising player who has played a handful of games for the first team of Pallacanestro Reggiana and is a regular for the Latvian under age national sides. However he has recieved sparse coverage, of which next to none is in depth or independent. This is not enugh of this stage to establish notabiliy, case of WP:TOOSOON in my eyes ArmstrongJulian (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBASKETBALL Pokerkiller (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- comment it is not correct to say he doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL. He has played games in the Italian first division Rikster2 (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes NBASKETBALL by virtue of playing in the italiian first division. There are a number of sources here that can be useful in expanding the article and show he passes GNG as well. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying he passes GNG is extremely lenient in my eyes. There's a mention by EuroCup and one by the Czech Federation but I wouldn't qualify them as significant (nor really independent). Probably the most in depth coverage is from Gazzetta di Reggio (which covers every single player on the team), this piece from Corriere di Bologa and this interview by the Italian federation. I'll let you judge by yourselves if that's decent coverage, for me it would put the mininum requirement quite low. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that it is an issue that the Gazzetta di Reggio covers every player on the team. By my eyes the coverage is decent, but then again, I would say my minimum standard is fairly low for article inclusion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - He has a slight amount of notability, but I feel like this is a 'too soon' situation. As well, the spirit of the guidelines are as important as the exact wording of things. Being mentioned tangentially is nice, but maybe it would make sense to delete this article now and just wait to see how his playing goes-- if he really becomes totally notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Pini[edit]

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

Delete:Promising player who has played a handful of games for the first team of Pallacanestro Reggiana and is a regular for the Italian under age national sides. However he has recieved sparse coverage, of which next to none is in depth or independent (even when he transfered to another team). This is not enugh of this stage to establish notabiliy, case of WP:TOOSOON in my eyes ArmstrongJulian (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - playing even one game in Serie A (which he has done) does meet WP:NBASKETBALL. However, if the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG it could still be deleted on those grounds. I should have time to review sources this evening to see if that is the case. Rikster2 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines would need freshening up, playing one game in the Serie A really does not generate that much coverage, I would personally change them to "has played the equivalent of a season" which would normally ensure decent coverage. Having tried to find sources and flesh out the article, I struggled to find anything more than passing mentions and routine coverage, and that's despite understanding Italian. Most of the significant coverage would come from local newspaper GazzettadiReggio, for english sources I doubt you'll get more than a passing mention on FIBA Europe, I don't even think Eurobasket.com had anything. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that for WP:NFOOTY playing an one game of any fully professional league (including American minor leagues, which is nuts and doesn't compare with how we treat minor league baseball or basketball, which get MUCH more coverage than soccer) I'm not that interested in changing the guideline. We are one of the stricter ones and would be better off staying with GNG in this case. Plus, when I look at his profile it looks like he has played 45 games - that seems significant. Rikster2 (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)--ArmstrongJulian (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the list of Gazzetta di Reggio articles listed above, Google News turns up a decent amount of hits. Some may be trivial but others cerainly do not. Passes NBASKETBALL by virtue of playing in the Serie A as well as GNG. Sources do not need to be in English to establish notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to meeting WP:NBASKETBALL, this and this are probably sufficient independent reliable sources to show GNG for a stub of this size. Rikster2 (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: The general opinion is that there's enough coverage to establish notablity and I'll go with that. I've updated the article with more sources, a bit light but it can only get better from now on and does not warrant deletion from now. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry French Historic Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable dormitory at Loughborough University. Given the odd title (there is nothing historic about this hall), it doesn't really make a useful redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article should be merged into the Loughborough University article, not deleted.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree for two reasons:
1. including this material at Loughborough University would give WP:UNDUE weight to this one hall;
2. the title of this article is an unlikely search term and so does not make a useful redirect.

-- WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Fisher (fan)[edit]

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

Appears to be a completely NN individual whose main accomplishment was creating a marginally notable magazine. No in-depth coverage of the man at all. The Dissident Aggressor 20:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found no better results than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virginia Beach, Virginia. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Munden Point Park[edit]

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

Run-of-the-mill public park, no assertion of notability. Slashme (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing better to suggest improvement with the best results being Books, browser and thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Virginia Beach, Virginia, which presently has no mention of the park. This would serve to enhance the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aylesbury Music Centre Dance Band[edit]

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

Doubtful if it passes WP:GNG. Not many Google hits (effectively 54) and no independent sourcing in the article. The Banner talk 21:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than this and this. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 04:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Her career isn't notable, and nothing is cited for her journalistic career. She is mentioned trivially in every other source in that section. She was a local victim advocate, but most of the mentions seem to have occurred in spurts, and she wasn't even all that famous for being deported. It is possible that her visibility is based on the fact that she is apparently the daughter of a former politician in Nigeria (according to one of the articles, but not mentioned anywhere else). MSJapan (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tons were cited on her Journalistic Career on appearances as an expert on terrorism, gun violence and health topics on CNN, Ruptly, BBC,CBC, FOX News and more. They were deleted by blocked user Wikishawnio. See reverted version pls. Wikicohen (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wikicohen: We've been over this on the article talk page already. None of the appearances you added as references described her as an expert on anything, instead she was consistently referred to as a reporter or journalist. A typical example of "journalists interviewing journalists".Sjö (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has had serious COI issues since it was created and is a serious candidate for WP:TNT even if the subject is notable. I'm not convinced she is. It appears that the subject has made great effort to become notable, but with only passing mentions in reliable sources, she's not achieved that yet. ~ Rob^Talk 21:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that she is really notable despite her numerous attempts at self publicity.Cathar66 (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant self promotion and peacockery, and this article has been a hotbed of contentious editing and COI editing. The only real notability has been from articles written about the subject's failed attempts at self promotion, and for petty accusations of wrongdoing. Scr★pIron^IV 14:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty notable, loads and loads of non-trivial international coverage over multiple years. The Nigerian sources do say she is the daughter of Victor Omololu Olunloyo, but that doesn't seem to have much to do with her notability directly; there she seems one of those people "famous for being famous", but that does count, we've got plenty of articles on people like that.
- Canadian sources: Toronto Sun 2012 2013 Metro News 2012 Toronto Star 2009 2009 2012 The Globe and Mail 2010 2012
- Nigerian sources: 2012 Pulse 2014 2015 2015 2012 The Eagle 2012 The Punch 2013 2015
- Minor, but still nontrivial, articles: Toronto Sun 2009 2010 2010 2010 2012 2012 Winnipeg Free Press 2011 Naij 2014 2015 2015 Daily Post Nigeria 2014 Pulse 2014 --GRuban (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm still on the fence about the article, but I'd like to mention that she is apparently a VIP blogger for Pulse.ng [4] which makes Pulse less of an independent source. Sjö (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Shouldn't matter per Sjö. There are 33 music columnist articles written by her in the Nigerian Tribune and also interviews and stories written about her before and after those articles Wikicohen (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Written by" doesn't help notability. Almost any journalist will have written hundreds or thousands of articles. Just doing their job doesn't make a journalist notable. WP:JOURNALIST is a relevant section. Sjö (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentSjö I wasn't talking about her articles being notable. I was talking about notable articles written ABOUT her. You are the same person saying Pulse can't be an independent source. The fact that articles are written about someone and they work there should not affect independent sources. I know of a Journalist who committed murder and his paper was the first to carry the article which BTW was notable.Wikicohen (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous articles in newspapers in more than one country, so now clearly passes the WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly she passed GNG but everyone has to remember that when I created this article I cited numerous sources on her Journalism career. They were deleted by Wikishawnio and then started adding lots of non encyclopaedic content resulting in edit warring. All her Journalism notability were reduced to networks she appeared on and not what she appeared for. It was then I noticed that this person did not like her and he began fighting me assuming I was Kemi. I alerted admins but was ignored! [redacted per WP:OUTING] At one point, "someone" posted some messages on her gun violence blog which I read daily at the every same time I got a notice of a sockpuppetry investigation from Rob being conducted against me. Yes I made legal threats because Rob falsely accused me knowing fully that 4 IP's coming from Nigeria could be 1-4 people. IP's in Nigeria are unique to ISP's not computers. Anyone could be editing from an internet cafe and I shouldn't be accused falsely. What if I did not read Kemi's blog and see those comments? It was not investigated by Rob and others. The comments cited that I was set up, then made death threats and wrote disturbing things (remember the writer still thinks they are talking to Kemi and me Wikicohen as the same person.) This was ignored by admins that my life may even be threatened all because I'm editing a wiki article. [redacted per WP:OUTING] I cannot contact Kemi, I don't know her, never met her and just picked her as a good article choice. There is already a COI on this article yet Im not a close connection to her. Someone affiliated with my article on her is now making death threats on her and also knows details on this wiki page. [redacted per WP:OUTING] Don't you think these threats are serious? This is not why I am on wikipedia. Back to Kemi, MSJapan She is not famous because of her father, There is no connection. All over the internet they have a violent history and she did not grow up 30 years in Nigeria so why the affiliation? My conclusion, this article should be reverted to the original article and still semi-protected then allow others to edit it neutrally. Once again read these comments. I feel sorry for Kemi herself who is the one being directly threatened. [redacted per WP:OUTING] Wikicohen (talk) 08:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Wikicohen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable, multiple RS coverage. The article has had a history of heated COI editwarring. However, that is not a reason to delete. Rather, article should be put under BLP sanctions. Editwarriors should be warned, and if necessary banned. LK (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm ♠ 04:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meghji Pethraj Shah[edit]

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

There are zero sources and almost no content PraiseTheAlmightyHelixFossil (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google throws up loads of potential sources. The man has a hospital in Kenya named after him and a medical school in India. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Books instantly found results and a Wall Street Journal mention at News and there may be more with familiar attention. II may look at the article later and see how much I can add. SwisterTwister talk 22:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Semerdjian[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) This article was proposed for deletion, and a sockpuppet of Orangemoody provided some sub-par sources and removed the PROD tag. Let's please have a proper deletion review. Slashme (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non significant lawyer. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Partner in a well-known law firm, and past chair of one of the largest sections of the ABA. Passes my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have specific policies for lawyers? I ask because based on GNG this person does not fair well. None of the references are both third-party and more than a mention; many are solely local. Unless there is a policy that puts "major firm" and "chair of section" forward, I have to say delete. LaMona (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I found Wikipedia:Notability_(law)#Lawyers, and it's beyond vague. I also looked at Bearean's list of lawyerly notability although I have no idea where that stands. The chasm between the two is incredibly wide. I'll stick with my !vote for the time being. LaMona (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and WP:TNT as my searches found results at News and Books but this may need a better start. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Nawlinwiki. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J Money Ca$H Money[edit]

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

The subject does not meet the GNG. Kebabpizza (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Hundreds of YouTube views" says it all; judging from where the subject's short film is hosted (on their school's YouTube channel), it looks like this was an odd school project where somehow they decided to add in a mixtape in to impress their classmates and instructors, but not much more. Nate • (chatter) 14:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Nothing found to support notability. ABF99 (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the claim of importance? A YouTube video and a self-released album aren't claims of importance required to pass A7. Tagged as such, next time kebabpizza, if you see a similar article with no sources and no claim of anything that remotely claims importance, tag for CSd. Pokerkiller (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bencherlite ^Talk 23:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of books about the Troubles[edit]

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

Wrongly nominated at MFD. Discussion from there follows for ease of reference. I am neutral. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of books, should this not be a list of notable books? Not a reference directory WP:NOT Murry1975 (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The list of books about the Troubles is certainly notable and will expand over time, that is all that is needed for an article at Wikipedia. There are many lists of books in Wikipedia on a wide-variety of topics, this is a new list and there are still many more notable books on the topic to be added over time by editors. IQ125 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied text. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC) Bencherlite ^Talk 13:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I left a comment at the MfD about it being nominated at the wrong venue. I should have looked more closely and opined at the same time, however, as it looks like Murry1975 may not be aware of bibliographies on Wikipedia. In fact, we have a whole project dedicated to them: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies. There's no firm rule about this, but I find that best practice is for bibliographies to be labeled as such (i.e. I think this should be renamed Bibliography of works on The Troubles). The test of whether something is an appropriate topic for a bibliography is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies#Notability of bibliography articles. "For a bibliography on a topic to be notable, the members of that bibliography should be discussed as a group in reliable sources. This discussion may take the form of a published standalone bibliography on the topic, a bibliography in a published reliable source on the topic or recommendations for further reading on the topic published in a reliable source on the topic." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is a list of books, which is a common topic at Wikipedia, it is not a bibliography. IQ125 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's not easy to think of a reason why this clearly notable and self-citing list should be deleted. The list has nothing to do with being a directory as claimed by nom. Plainly as IQ125 observes the list is incomplete - there are actually some titles in The Troubles not listed here - but it is a sharply delimited topic, so the list will have a simple and clear inclusion criterion, and the topic is obviously encyclopaedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that lists of books are obliged to comply with the lofty standard described above, but it seems that this topic unsurprisingly meets it. Bibliographies include

CAIN Warwick The Guardian Gillespie's A to Z of the NI Conflict Edwards Anthony and Mageean Sanders and Wood There are many others. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per IQ. And in any case these are generally notable authors re. WP:LIST. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (edit conflict) (looks like these have largely been covered already. oh well) For published lists outside of works about the subject, I found The Guardian, University of Ulster (here again), University of Warwick, and Youth Justice Review. As for bibliographies in published reliable sources on the topic, there exist a whole lot of relevant books about the subject containing bibliographies. E.g. The Troubles: Ireland's Ordeal and the Search for Peace, Michael Collins and the Troubles ...and there look to be several more. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per IQ. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sheer volume of works on the Troubles by itself makes this list worth having (even if that article were a featured article, it couldn't possibly cite every work about the conflict or list them all in a "further reading" section. I've no doubt that the body of literature has been the subject of academic discussion, and list comprises (or will comprise as it is expanded) many works by notable authors and probably even works that are notable in their own right. A list like this would be an extremely valuable resource both for the public and for Wikipedians researching the topic. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Sartwell[edit]

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

Non-notable, doesn't meet GNG, article is very light on the sources. Two of them are forwards/intros to other people's books. The other is a summary to his own book. Article has had a citations template on it since 2012. Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC) 13:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a ton of work, and perhaps this AfD leads to improvement, but the subject is no doubt notable, with over a half a dozen books with notable presses. I quickly dug up a half a dozen reviews, plus one article which argues that he's one of the most notable epistemologists of our time. (A really boring article, by the way--imagine having to read the tenure files for philosophers.) Drmies (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: I would like to see some more work on the page, but the sources Drmies added is enough to meet GNG and N, and probably pull down that Citiations template. So, with that, I withdraw this AfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Daniels[edit]

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

Businessman mentioned peripherally in several articles and press releases. Is connected to notable people, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I've tagged this multiple times for notability and prodded the article as an IP, but a WP:SPA removes all templates. JNW (talk) 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See also AeroGroup for the same problems re: notability and reliable sources. JNW (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article makes no real claims of the subjects notability. In the references in the article, many are press releases by a company with a PR quote by the subject. In none of the references is the subject the focus of the story. I think it's probably questionable enough that the company (AeroGroup) is notable, and most certainly the citations are about the company not the subject itself. I only found one additional source about the actual subject [5], but I don't see this meeting the significant coverage thresholds for WP:BIO. -- R45 ^talk! 13:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable here, move along quietly please, — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bandarban District#Bandarban Town. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bandarban Stadium[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable sports arena. Quis separabit? 12:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Could be notable, but very hard to find sourcing. Redirect to Bandarban_District#Bandarban_Town where the "District Stadium" seems to reference it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bandarban District#Bandarban Town for now, as suggested above. Standard practice in such cases. Cavarrone 08:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bandarban District#Bandarban Town for now.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fredric Alan Maxwell[edit]

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

Several editors have expressed the concern that this article does not meet the criteria of WP:AUTHOR so I am bringing it to AFD for community discussion. (But abstaining from !voting myself). Vrac (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Vrac, you're definitely not a basque terrorist, but wiki policies prevent me from saying what I really thing of you. The WP:AUTHOR category itself is bullshit. So a person is not an author unless:

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

3.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4.The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

And you're citing sales as indicative of whether Fred is an author. I'm sure there are hundred of thousands if not millions of writers out there who would have your head over that definition. You're no editor, you're an [expletive deleted]. Thanks for wasting all my time last weekend, on a holiday, no less. [Expletive Deleted]

The rest of you "delete" voting [expletive deleted]'s, what the [expletive deleted] is wrong with you? Author has to be notable? And have coverage? I thought the point of wiki was to avoid commercial usurpment of the internet? Stay on the internet, I never want to meet you "editors" in public. Blevenberg (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)— Blevenberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete, very obscure; author not notable for own stub article. Kierzek (talk) 13:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NAUTHOR. Subject appears to be adept at self promotion. Citing an article about oneself written by oneself no matter the publisher does not contribute to notability. Jbh ^Talk 14:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marginally notable author of marginally notable book. Book Amazon sales rank: #1,721,799. Currently remaindered. Fails WP:AUTHOR. John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete Oh, I see, the page has been up for over a decade, but now, for some reason, someone named Vrac keeps removing references, citations, and around half the content of the page -- then others claim there are not enough independent sources. It's a classic example of the kid who kills both his parents then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he's an orphan. And he repeatedly adds a defamatory statement, insinuating that I wasn't investigated by the Secret Service with absolutely no evidence to back him up. Zip. Zero. Nada. What's more, unlike what any formally-educated professional journalist learns in the first few days of class, he failed to put "allegedly" in front of the bogus charge that I made a threat to George Bush, after cutting out all references to, as The Washington Post reported (June 24, 2003), ironically in their Reliable Sources column, the humorous hand-written fan letter Hillary Clinton sent me about the piece. That's notable. Then he puts the page up for deletion and runs away. Vrac also removed all references to my helping lead a successful civil disobedience action at our national Library of Congress that rolled back reduced hours (See August, 1989 Eight Days in Hell Regardies), something I testified before Congress about three times, and spent eight days in the DC jail for, and of course, a main reason The New Yorker ran a short Talk of the Town profile of me. Way less than one percent of all professional authors are even mentioned in TNY, let alone profiled. Clearly, The New Yorker thinks I'm notable. Oh, and my unauthorized Steve Ballmer biography had a full-page review in The New York Times Book Review. Ask a professional author how many of his or her brethren has had that happened to their books (Spoiler Alert: way way way less than one percent of all books published.) Here's my resume, virtually all verifiable.FredTheBiped2 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)— FredTheBiped2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We do not make any judgement about a person being an author or not. We do, as we are doing in this discussion make a judgement about whether a person meets Wikipedia's specific notability criteria for authors. There is no need for to post your resume here. It has no bearing on the discussion and disrupts the process. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh ^Talk 19:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I do not understand how posting evidence to the contrary of the attempt to delete my page within a week disrupts the process. Kindly let me know, jdhnuley FredTheBiped2 (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fredric Alan Maxwell Writer XXXXXXX (contact information)

Books

Bad Boy Ballmer: The Man Who Rules Microsoft (Morrow, 2002; HarperBusiness paper 11/03) Unauthorized biography of Microsoft’s CEO, Steve Ballmer. Reviewed by the New York Times Book Review (full page), Publisher’s Weekly, Worth, Booklist, and numerous other pubs. One of Booklist's Top Ten Business Books for 2002-2003. Translated into Chinese, Japanese, German, Russian, Korean, and Romanian. Has gone paper in China, Russia, and Germany. Showing My Color (Harper Collins,1996) Assisted Pulitzer Prize-winning Chicago Tribune columnist and News Hour contributor Clarence Page with researching and editing his collection of race relations essays. War Without Bloodshed: The Art of Politics (Macmillan,1996) Assisted the late Cleveland Plain Dealer Washington Bureau Chief Tom Brazaitis and his wife, Eleanor Clift, of Newsweek, with researching and editing their study of seven players in the health care reform debate. The Autobiography of Leonard Peltier (collaborator, unpublished) 1991-92. Letters to Myself (unpublished novel) 1990.Albionian ’77 (college yearbook) Editor-in-Chief.

Periodicals

The New York Times Magazine, "Spooked," 4/27/03; The Austin-American Statesman, “You’re better than this, Austin,” 7/29/08; “Is peace of mind worth all the aggravation? 1/22/10; The New Yorker, "The Vietnam Undead," 11/30/92; The Texas Observer; “Deep in My Heart in Texas,” 3/21/08. Harper’s, "Of Memories, Mom, and the Library of Congress," 5/93; Michigan Today, “The Late Great 98: Tom Harmon on the field and at war.” 9/17/08; Newsweek, "Chipping Away At Civilization," 5/19/86; Regardie’s, "Eight Days in Hell," 8/89. Additional work has appeared in US News and World Report, The Missoula Independent, The Washington Spectator, Washington Dossier, The Washington Post, Library Juice, The Miami Herald, Topeka Metro-News, Lefthander’s Magazine, and Seattle Weekly. Editor & Publisher, The Maxwell Report 81-83.

Speaking

The Todd Mundt Show, NPR, Ann Arbor, MI 4/28/03; Guest Lecturer: University of Nevada (Las Vegas) 4/3/06 and 4/10/06; University of New Mexico (Albuquerque) 10/26/05 “How to Commit Good Journalism” and “A Tale of Two Steves: Jobs and Ballmer;” University of Washington, 3/14/98: "Sex in Politics" and "Did Newt Gingrich Plagiarize his dissertation?" Albion College 0/14/99 and E.W. Seaholm High School 10/19/99 on book-in-progress Rich Kids from Birmingham (which morphed into Bad Boy Ballmer). Prepared and presented nationally reported testimony before the U.S. Congress concerning public accessibility to our national Library of Congress 5/5/86, 1/26/93, 2/8/94.

Publicity

Pieces about or quoting Fredric Alan Maxwell have appeared in numerous venues including The Guardian (London), National Public Radio, Washington Post, Forbes, New York Daily News, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, New York Times, The New Yorker, Associated Press, Ann Arbor News, Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, Roll Call, Kansas City Star, Topeka Capitol-Journal, Seattle Times, and Plain Dealer.

Craftsman

Fred the Finisher 1997-2000, 2006-7: Funded writing addiction by refinishing bright work (wood) on yachts. Authored open letter to American Psychiatric Association in vain attempt to get recreational boat ownership recognized as a mental disorder. 48 Degrees North, 8/00; Latitudes & Attitudes, 7/03; Latitude 38, 3/05; and The Atlantic, 10/04 (letters).

Organizing

Founding Executive Director, The Vietnamese Memorial Association (VMA) 1992-93. Established 501(c) 3 dedicated to building memorials in Vietnam to honor the war dead and foster reconciliation among the living. VMA morphed into the Vietnamese Children's Fund, dedicated to the memory of Lew Puller, Jr., which currently funds school construction in Vietnam.

Formal Education

Stanford University Professional Publishing Course (SPPC), Palo Alto, CA, 1983 and 2002: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1979 post-graduate study in American Social History; Albion College, Albion, Michigan 75-78 B.A. in Economics, minors in English and History. Albion College Scholarship. Dean’s List. Additional study at the universities of Virginia, Maryland, Case Western Reserve, and Georgetown.

Military Service

Chief of Naval Operations Personal Staff, Washington, D.C. 1973-75 "Flawless" Vietnam-era U.S. Navy service as non-commissioned navigation officer (QM3) on the personal staffs of Admirals Zumwalt and Holloway. National Defense Medal. Highly recommended for U.S. Naval Academy and reenlistment. US Naval Reserve 1975-1978. Honorably discharged.

Etcetera

Profiled as "Bookworm" in The New Yorker 12/14/92. Born June 17, 1954 in Birmingham, Michigan, graduating from Birmingham Ernest W. Seaholm High School June 15, 1972. Corresponded with Kurt Vonnegut and Norman Mailer. Received humorous handwritten fan letter from then-Senator Hillary Clinton after she read my New York Times Magazine piece “Spooked.” Member: Authors Guild, American Civil Liberties Union, National Public Radio, Planned Parenthood, The University of Michigan Alumni Association, and The Fred Society.

FredTheBiped2 (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FredTheBiped2 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @FredTheBiped2: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on what is appropriate to include in the encyclopedia. For articles the most important thing to be done is establish notability. For this we have out general notability guidelines which in short require significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. There are also various specific notability guidelines which give additional, usually easier to meet, criteria to establish notability. In this case those are the specific notability criteria for authors. If an article subject meets out notability criteria an article can be kept but it is not required to be kept. If the subject does not meet those criteria than there may not be an article on that subject included in Wikipedia. We do not make any judgement about the subject's importance or contribution to society we only judge if there has been enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to allow us to write an informative and neutral article.
If you wish to argue to keep the article you must state how the subject meets our notability criteria and how that information can be verified by coverage in independent, reliable sources. No other arguments will have any positive influence on the outcome of this deletion discussion.
Since you have stated here that you are the subject of this article you should become familiar with out conflict of interest policy. Also, please note that Wikipedia strongly discourages writing autobiographies. Please read the material I have blue linked above it goes into our policies and guidelines in detail. I realize that it looks like a lot of reading but attempting to write a Wikipedia article, particularly about yourself, is not likely to be a satisfying experience without understanding how Wikipedia works. Jbh ^Talk 16:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So I googled the book title and surname - usually works with authors ("bad boy Ballmer" maxwell) and I found an article about him in The Oregonian, here: [6] True, the journalist was using him as a poster boy for a category, but, still, it's a pretty extensive bio. Here: [7] The Guardian quotes him as an expert on Ballmer. Here [8] Fox News cites the Ballmer book. Tried search on book sans Maxwell, here's reviewfrom the Seattle Post Intelligencer [9] and here's a review from the NYTimes [10]. That puts him over the top. I'm going back to the top of this stream of consciousness iVote to type in Keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem to be better sources to support the notability of the book rather than the author Jbh ^Talk 19:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for the book makes some sense. Steve Ballmer is notable, and there aren't many book length bios of him. The author, not so much. A mention in Steve Ballmer is probably sufficient. John Nagle (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tagged WP:SPA's and likely SOCKS see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Blevenberg

Blvenberg is not a sock but rather MEAT. See tags on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Duh... I should have seen that. Jbh ^Talk 21:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete book may be notable; author doesn't meet WP:GNG Jytdog (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cites that have turned up so far are pretty minor. This person doesn't meet wp:author - having published one book that got at best lukewarm reception, and no major reviews. I don't know what other categories he could satisfy, but it hardly matters because, IMO, wp:gng isn't met. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book was translated into Russian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and German, . s̄ a general rule, if there is an author notable for one book, it makes more sense to keep the article on the author, because it is likely to be expanded if they write other books; the book article is much less likely. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G11, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ajoy garapati[edit]

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

Failed WP:BIO... no real notability established (he's just a CEO, no verifiable references, and article reads like a resume)... I nominated for speedy but it was removed several times with the comment "?" Stephenb (Talk) 11:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Perhaps this can be revisited after some months when the notability of the photographer can be better assessed, e.g. in light of any continuing coverage or award wins. Sandstein 09:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nilüfer Demir[edit]

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

BLP1E - unremarkable individual outside one event -- Callinus (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, which I suppose is obvious because I created the article. Jane (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting for more data from her. Please wait with deletion. -Violetova (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. Quis separabit? 12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, too obscure. Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to be notable enough for an independent article at this time. I wouldn't object to merging to Alan Kurdi, but there's barely any content to merge. Robofish (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:ARTIST: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Please note that I added two more sources highlighting her bio, and she likely also passes WP:N. I am not sure we need three articles: about her, about the child, and about the photo, but if only one of these three should be kept I guess this should be the article about the photographer.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that she is an artist by our definition, and I added the Women artists tag to the talk page, but this was removed. Thanks for those other comments (I was am not familiar with those policies). Jane (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So please name the "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" where her picture is the main subject. Burst of unj (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course the professional photographer of the iconic picture should have an own article. E.Doornbusch (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the name of that picture? Is there any reference that the photo is referred to as Flavor of the Month? No insensitivity intended. Burst of unj (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Work has been featured and analyzed by everyone from the BBC to the Canadian candidates to The Weather Network to the Islamic State. This is far from just Facebook viral. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her work has not been critiqued as a work of art. She is not a "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" where her picture is the main subject. Burst of unj (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That BBC news report is not an art review by a medium dedicated to art. Try again! Burst of unj (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'd like that, wouldn't you? This "medium dedicated to art" criteria is something you pulled out of your ass. The BBC is one of multiple independent reviews, and that's all it needs to be. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She does not meet wikipedia criteria for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Please save your "ass" talk for someone else. Burst of unj (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard you the first seven times. If you're now resting everything on a narrow definition of "periodical" and assuming that definition also applies to "or reviews", there's still the 4b and 4c criteria. I'll wager you want to say exhibitions need to be in museums, and critical attention has to come from professional art critics. If so, don't bother making that up, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She does not meet the criteria for multiple reviews in periodicals or multiple articles in periodicals or (possibly) one of each. I am not the one defining what a periodical is, but if you want BBC included - you might have a long road ahead. Burst of unj (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've heard you the first eight times. I think this long familiar road might actually be us walking in circles. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The familiar road might be called "Trying to shoo in a press photographer without required merits". But she does get an "A" for her effort in photographing a drowning victim facedown in the surf with body on land, after the body was dragged on land. Burst of unj (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell do you keep saying it like that? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am pointing out inconsistencies and facts. Burst of unj (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would basically be opposed to demeaning the accomplishment. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article subject passes passes WP:ARTIST. Professional photographer of an absolutely iconic photo. Also end the Merge discussion at the talk page. We can not have a AfD and a Merge discussion going on at the same time.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her work has not been critiqued as a work of art. She is not a "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" where her picture is the main subject. She does not pass WP:CREATIVE (or WP:ARTIST). Burst of unj (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Photographs of Alan Kurdi. I would find it odd if the article about the photographs gets deleted, and the article about her gets kept; that would mean that her photos are not notable, but that she is! Burst of unj (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (per WP:BLP1E) to Photographs of Alan Kurdi, or to Alan Kurdi if former article should end up merged/deleted. No notability outside single event which is already covered by multiple articles.--Staberinde (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article about her photographs has later been deleted. Her photos are not notable on this website as a separate subject - and now one suggests that this website has a need for a seperate article about her! When the bathwater goes out, so does the photographer floating in the bathwater! Burst of unj (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into wherever the information at Photographs of Alan Kurdi winds up (which itself is likely merging with Alan Kurdi) and then redirect there. Fails WP:BLP1E for a standalone article, but the information is worth noting somewhere. ~ Rob^Talk 21:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She's not notable for any events, she's notable for creating a (more or less) permanent object. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What object might that be? Burst of unj (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A photo gallery. Your account is extremely familiar with it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That object - or image file - is as much a permanent object as a song recorded (as an audio file in bits and bytes, even in cyberspace. I am assuming that you are referring to a series of (at least 3 pictures), rather than a photo gallery. Time will tell if she is notable for any "events". If she doesn't get something close to a Pulitzer Prize, it will be because of "events" - not for the lack of events. --Burst of unj (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're a tough one to understand. But yeah, "series" and "gallery" are interchangeable, in my books. This is the future, after all. They don't need to actually hang in a building to be notable works. Only if they want to have notable galas. The object here is simply the image, whether via computer file, slideshow projection, posterized T-shirt or whatever derivative work. Artists aren't judged on what they do to produce things, but on what things they produce do. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She still does not pass the criteri for being the "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" where her picture is the main subject. Burst of unj (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)"[reply]

You're still confused. The art needs to be the subject, not the artist. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The press photograph - or art (according to some here) - has not been the "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". She does not meet wikipedia criteria. Burst of unj (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alan Kurdi (which should probably be moved to Death of Alan Kurdi). Her photographs are iconic. Miniapolis 00:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even if there isn't an enormous amount of information now that isn't critical. Just taking those photos makes her notable. There is an article on Nick Ut who took the photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc fleeing from her napalmed village, and Eddie Adams who took the famous execution photo of Nguyễn Văn Lém. And as a young photojournalist she will have a further career which can be updated in due course.-Josephus37 (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She never won a Pulitzer Prize, in contrast to the two Pulitzer Winners that you mentioned. Burst of unj (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the merge discussion at Talk:Photographs of Alan Kurdi#Merge Nilüfer Demir to here so that we don't have two discussions going on at the same time. I have copied the contents of the discussion below. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.-Josephus37 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion continues beneath the box below. Thank you. Burst of unj (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without stopping the discussion above, the following discussion has been inserted here - moved from Talk:Photographs of Alan Kurdi.

The proposal is to merge the article on the photographer, Nilüfer Demir, to here (Photographs of Alan Kurdi). Rationale: Nilüfer Demir has only become known through these photographs, and we have no reliable sources other than in relation to the photographs. (See also this proposal to merge the article Alan Kurdi to here.) --Lambiam 10:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge - World leaders refer to her photographs of the lifeless boy, but hardly to her if at all. She is not a witness in any formal police investigation as to how a boy gets picked lifeless out of the water and treated tenderly, and therefter is found face down in the water when it is time for photographs. Burst of unj (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Not Merge. Nilüfer Demir is definitely an extraordinary person, a 29 year old woman, professional photographer. She stands by herself. How many persons would have been capable to take such photos ? I can also see that she has now an article in 4 other WPs. From which criteria should one say that she does not deserve a bio like the 2000+ American photographers present on WP ? Are we sure that she is less reknown or talented or important or courageous than these 2000+ photographers ? Jatayou (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Being extraordinary or not is not the issue. We don't include articles about people because they "deserve" it as being extraordinary and exceptionally courageous and talented. The sole criterion is notability, and that is what is at issue here. See also these additional criteria for (among others) photographers, and WP:1EVENT. --Lambiam 21:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
I try to reword who is Nilüfer : worthy of notice, remarkable, significant, interesting, and unusual enough to deserve attention and to be recorded. All this being words that you can find on the notability WP page. Please also refer to the comment of Mardus below which I totally support. Jatayou (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of what it says in the lead of the guideline, I maintain that the subject meets neither the basic criteria for notability nor the additional criteria set forth in the guideline. We simply do not have sufficient material from reliable sources to write a decent article on the subject. If you leave out the sentences on the photographs, all that is left is, "Nilüfer Demir (born 1986) is a Turkish photographer based in Bodrum, Turkey." --Lambiam 21:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Do not merge. Nilüfer Demir is a separate topic from Photographs, just as Nick Ut is. -Mardus (talk) 12:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Only one of those two has won a Pulitzer Prize - and it's not Nilüfer Demir. At this point in time, her merits have not reached his level. She is only known for one thing, but I am inclined to think that if she does nothing else, this one thing is generally viewed as more than fifteen minutes of fame. Burst of unj (talk) 14:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Merge any relevant, delete rest. Notable for one set of photographs not worthy of own article. Worth commenting here on the context of the photographer who took the photos. SPACKlick — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)

Do not merge. - clearly notable photographer. and secondly we can not have both a merge discussion and an AfD going at the same time. keep per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

BabbaQ's vote from the imported discussion, needs to be ignored by the Stats-calculator. Therefore I have changed his/her "not merge" to "not merg-e". Burst of unj (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is this discussion closed now? I am asking because there is a "big box" in the discussion, and no one has added anything, so therefore it looks like a "close". Burst of unj (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is open. The move discussion is on hold pending the AfD outcome.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand the BLP1E argument, which is very enticing given the current lack of information about this person, but I am swayed by BabbaQ's powerful one-liner. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to fail WP:CREATIVE (or WP:ARTIST) because she is not a "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Absolutely not notable - I am not swayed to say differently about her, after reading the criteria for notability. Burst of unj (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to 2015 Bodrum fatal boating accident or Migration to the EU article. She has not won any significant awards yet for her photo of lifeless boy lying facedown in the surf with body on land, after having been dragged on land by a hotel employee. Burst of unj (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a journalist and photographer, she has her own career, personal identity, etc separate from the death of Alan Kurdi. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However she does not meet this website's criteria for notability for creative professionals yet. A stand alone article about her 3 (or more) photos would be a good place to mention her. But that can wait until after she has been on Oprah's TV show with her poetic desciptions of her thoughts when she photoed Kurdi back with his face in the water, after he had been dragged out of the water and onto the beach. Burst of unj (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's long past time that you stop attacking people here, with your bad faith disruption of Wikipedia policy in order to prove a point against others. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out facts and inconsistencies. Burst of unj (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are behaviorally deliberately disruptively so as to attack other editors and otherwise be unhelpful. Should you continue this behavior, you will find yourself having admins throw the book at you. Wikipedia is not 4chan. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out facts and inconsistencies. That some see things differently is where the situation stands. Burst of unj (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I please suggest that you stop uncivil behavior, in order to avoid an imminent block. There are enough examples on this page. Additionally, even if you are an obvious singe-purpose account, it is sufficient to state your point once or twice, and not replicate it dozens of times all over the place. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments to PROP that press photographer into notability are flawed. But go ahead, keep up the ad homs: "uncivil behaviour", "imminent block". Burst of unj (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attacks need to end. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell what he's implying or against whom with this facedown/eyes/after talk (here and elsewhere), but it doesn't quite sound not slanderous. As far as I can decipher, whatever it is is probably aimed at someone on that beach, rather than at a Wikipedian. Certainly disrupting Wikipedians, but in a passive cow on the highway sense, not like a tiger on the prowl. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At Photographs of Alan Kurdi there is no mention of "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" either. She is a press photographer with photos which nobody has given any titles. Arguably her photos were not found worthy of having its own article on this website yet. Burst of unj (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as proposed. Naturally the photograph author should be mentioned on the photography article, but that hardly qualifies as a merge. - Nabla (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I understand the other arguments, which are very enticing given the current lack of information about this person, but I am swayed by Nabla's powerful one-liner. Burst of unj (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please!... Do yourself, and us, a favour (or two): you do not need to comment on everyone, and you do not need to vote for the third time already (if I have not missed some). - Nabla (talk) 11:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only one vote per person! However I have changed vote from "Merge" to "Delete", thanks to the first of your powerful one-liners in this discussion. Burst of unj (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the stats from the link on top of the page are inaccurate, because BabbaQ's vote is counted as a "Merge". (One way of solving the problem is to copy his vote above, and strike it out (or something), and then write below: "Keep" vote moved from above, due to a "conflict with an imported comment, in the 'discussion box' above that also was imported"). Burst of unj (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If we can ask that "hurry and close the discussion now, so the article can be kept on merit of the stats (to be viewed by closing admin in his/her decision or "decision".)! (7 votes for "keep" including BabbaQ's - 6 for delete. The stats in the stat link still have not been corrected.) The article can not be kept on account of lacking merits: She has not yet been reviewed by any periodical. On account of lacking merits WP:SNOW seems applicable. Burst of unj (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're absolutely hung up on the "periodical" point, do you dispute that she meets the basic criteria? If not, you agree that she may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The BASICS seem to be: Flavor of the Month, for press photographers recording drowned victim with eyes and face in the surf, after being dragged on land and having his eyes gently closed. Burst of unj (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Making one appearance in the news does not make one newsworthy; does not meet WP:GNG- a 'single item celebrity' _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge WP:TOOSOON the coverage has been about the image, not the artist WP:BLP1E. What little exists in this article can easily be covered in the picture article if it is not already there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected Stats - 7 keep, 7 delete. (BabbaQ's vote is still not registered as "keep"). Burst of unj (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- this isn't a snout count. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Photography is an entirely valid means of visual expression and we see that means of expression deftly handled by Nilüfer Demir in the photo of the deceased youth Alan Kurdi. Much journalistic notice has been taken of the photojournalist and her work. Bus stop (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This website can not take your word for that. As a press photographer there are no notable prizes that she has won. If she becomes an artist (or even a press photographer) "subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", then she will meet this website's criteria for notability. She is not there yet. Burst of unj (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:BASIC. If she meets that, she doesn't need to meet any additional criteria, even Criterion #2 of WP:ANYBIO. She can only be excluded on certain grounds, such as WP:BLP1E. That's a tricky argument, because a work of art is not an event, but it's far better than this defense. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "art", do you mean the photograph she took while she was on the clock for a Turkish Press Agency, not as a resident artist or traveling artist, but as a press photographer. Burst of unj (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do you understand that I'm not talking about art here, but general notability? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you say that there is no art involved, I might be inclinded to concur. Burst of unj (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no "art involved"? Bus stop (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might be swayed by a powerful one-liner, next time it comes my way. Burst of unj (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swaying a single purpose account isn't worth anything, politically. I just wanted to know if you understood the policy. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing "Photography is an entirely valid means of visual expression". Burst of unj (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A deletion discussion is not a crude vote-counting affair where technically whomever 'side' happens to have the most individuals comment 'wins'. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the website. More more information, look at Wikipedia:Deletion process. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple in-depth sources easily passes WP:GNG. WP:ARTIST is irrelevant now as GNG is the priority guideline. freshacconci talk to me 17:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are lacking as far as the criteria are concerned; the criteria might not have been mentioned enough times already. Ask and you shall receive a repetition of (criteria). Burst of unj (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. freshacconci talk to me 18:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge to Alan Kurdi, per Ymblanter. Notable in her own right, passing GNG and ARTIST (barely). However, this event is significant, and she has a very important role in the event. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is a "keep/merge" vote - one vote or two? How does she pass GNG? She has not been receiving significant mention by politicians as far as I can see. That might mean that she is not a significant part of the event. Burst of unj (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep first, merge if not possible. Since when does being mentioned by a politician affect notability? -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Since when does being mentioned by a politician affect notability?" It doesn't. this is just the MO of a disruptive editor. See: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Burst_of_unj if you're not familiar with him. freshacconci talk to me 19:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Also happens to be why I am here. -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She shot some photos, which are owned by her employer. This website has decided that her photos are not notable enough for the photos to have a separate article. Some photos she shot, have been referred to by a some prime ministers and world leaders, since 2 September. These world leaders are hardly mentioning her if at all, but they do refer to the agency's photos (shot by her). And they hardly if at all refer to the photos as art. I conclude that she is not an important part of "the event". Burst of unj (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this photographer was totally unknown until she was lucky enough to shoot the photo of Alan Kurdi which accidentally was massively picked by the media to create guilt into Westerners. Insignificant person otherwise. --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was unknown and now she's known -- that's kind of how it works. Which guidelines address being lucky to achieve notability and creating guilt in Westerners? freshacconci talk to me 01:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How would one distinguish between sheer "luck" on the one hand and determination, hard work, talent, and passion? I don't think we should be concerned whether "Westerners" experience guilt or not. The senseless death of a child is likely to provoke feelings of guilt or at least sorrow. We don't delete an article because an artist's photograph induces guilt or sorrow. (I think I am basically making the same point that Freshacconci has already made above.) Bus stop (talk) 03:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:::*One distinguishes by seeing if she has been runner-up for national awards for press photographers' organisations. If she has not been mentioned in that way, it's likely (a) fluke. Wikipedia doesn't reward mere "determination, hard work, talent, and passion" plus pictures in newspapers and TV (when her name is hardly mentioned in those passings) with a wikipedia article. If one plays the "Its difficult for women to succeed in Turkey card", then one looks for awards from the most significant international organisations for (female?) press photographers. 46.15.33.165 (talk) 06:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to be so insignificant that the article about her does not explain that she is a journalist. She interviewed one of the policemen at the "dead body scene", in front of a professional cameraman from the same news team. She is a "working stiff" without any merits, working at a press agency. No merits as a journalist, but has shot a photo for her press agency which has been published widely. Press photos usually have the name of the photographer attached to the photo when publishing. That's not notable, that's normal. 46.15.33.165 (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)Fairly obvious topicban evasion. Black Kite (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you—are you the same editor who edits as "Burst of unj"? Bus stop (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking LOL eh! That man is rumbled EPIC SOCK FAIL looool — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 2015-09-13 09:10:22‎

This must be driving him crazy, not being able to comment, and respond to every keep !vote. freshacconci talk to me 13:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Demir's work is already being compared with the most iconic photos of all time [11]. WWGB (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ARTIST. Flat Out (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If by some chance the article was deleted, it would no doubt be re-created when Demir wins the prize/s she will no doubt win for this. It seems obvious it should be kept.-Josephus37 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments above by User:Ymblanter. -Mardus (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with so much coverage, article subject clearly meets both WP:ARTIST and the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Rome Tours & Walks[edit]

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

I don't believe that this company is notable - it is just another travel company. It has been mentioned in the LA Times etc but those refs just tell us that the company exists and how much it charges for the tours as these articles are primarily aimed at travellers Gbawden (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company has been written about in travel sections of news publications around the world. I added a few more, and tried to avoid press releases, personal sites and commercial sites. Sure, the articles are aimed at travelers - just as software articles are aimed at software users and articles about cars are in auto magazines. Some of the articles are reports from travel writers who have taken the tours - just as valid as references as book reviews are for a book article. The company does run non-notable, ordinary tours, but it also has special tours that other tour companies don't do, and that is what has attracted the news coverage.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Ann Delong's rationale, coverage is significant. Vrac (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I suppose as there' enough acceptable coverage. SwisterTwister talk 21:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of French supercentenarians. And merge whatever seems appropriate and has consensus from history. A merger is the outcome most supported here. Sandstein 09:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eudoxie Baboul[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian with no significant coverage. No justification for a stand-alone article because everything of value (her name, age and country) is already mentioned and sourced in List of French supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC) — CommanderLinx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as per nom. Possibly Merge to List of French supercentenarians, but hardly seems worth it. Clearly fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 12:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or ~~merge~~ redirect to List of French supercentenarians. I was going to nominate this article for deletion after making some copyedits and removing fancruft (she cultivated and sold vegetables in her younger years) but I was on my phone. There's no significant independent coverage of this person's age and she's at most notable for the single event of being very old (BLP1E). Every significant fact in the article (birth date, birth country, country of residence, current age) is already included in the French list. Ca2james (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I changed my merge !vote to redirect, above. All of the information about her is in the table on that page so there's nothing to merge. I specifically do not mean that a new subsection (aka a mini-biography) for her should be created on that page: a new subsection would duplicate the information in the list and is not needed. Ca2james (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Including her occupation in her younger years is a biographical detail, NOT fancruft. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of French supercentenarians. She is verified and featured by the GRG and has been the subject of newspaper articles on several occasions. Certainly enough coverage in reliable sources to at least justify a stub article. A mini-biography at the French supercentenarians article might be more suitable. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Ollie231213 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article has seen no improvement since creation in May. Can you provide these "several newspaper articles" as per WP:BURDEN? Because in the five months no new material has been added. Verification by GRG does not mean a person is notable. There is absolutely nothing to merge at this point either so a mini-bio isn't needed as per above. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See 930310's post below. Being included in the GRG tables counts as coverage in reliable sources. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 10:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of French supercentenarians. While Mrs. Baboul might potentially not be notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article she's likely notable enough to at least have a short mini-biography. As for news coverage here are a few:

Regarding her becoming the oldest living French person: http://www.franceguyane.fr/regions/guyane/les-secrets-de-la-longevite-d-eudoxie-baboul-244182.php
Regarding her 112th birthday: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15nmq6_la-doyenne-de-guyane-eudoxie-baboul-a-112-ans_news
Regarding her 111th birthday: http://www.blada.com/boite-aux-lettres/infos-citoyennes/8433-Commune_de_Sinnamary.htm
Regarding her 110th birthday: http://sinnamary.mairies-guyane.org/?actualite=68&la-doyenne-de-guyane-est-sinnamarienne
Regarding her 109th birthday: http://www.franceguyane.fr/regions/dans-vos-communes/eudoxie-hermine-baboul-a-fete-ses-109-ans-05-10-2010-71201.php?

So she has been featured in the media several times. 930310 (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — 930310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of these sources really help establish notability. Number 1 and 5 require a subscription to view, and 3 and 4 are two sentences about her birthday. I can't watch number 2 on my mobile so I can't comment on it. As for the GRG reference, it's a list of names in a table. Again, a mini-bio is not necessary because there is nothing to merge. CommanderLinx (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does then? It doesn't matter if a source requires a subscription to view. The point is that there are several reports on her previous birthdays because of her age. How many articles about your birthdays have there been? Oh, and by the way, to dismiss the GRG as just "a list of names in a table" is total nonsense. What counts as significant coverage is dependent upon context. If a longevity claimant has been verified by an organisation and included on a list of the oldest people, then that implies notability. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 18:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:GNG that says that being listed by the GRG or similar organization implies that the subject is notable, or that what is considered significant is dependent on context. A few brief mentions of this person's age in local media, appearance in the GRG tables, and a video of a local news broadcast talking about her age do not qualify as significant independent mentions. In fact, they're all local, making her a low-profile individual, and they all focus on her only in the context of her age, so per WP:BLP1E, there should be no article on her. Ca2james (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the GRG is being called a "set of names on a list" when clearly it's more than that. If someone is on that list, it means they're one of the oldest people in the world (making her at least a bit notable). It may be local news but it's still news, and the fact that she has been reported on multiple occasions means that she is clearly not notable for one event. Longevity is not "one event" in the same way that being a footballer is not "one event" -- Ollie231213 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that because this is an article about a low-profile living person, the policy that applies is WP:BLP1E, not WP:ONEEVENT. Also, what seems clear to you is not clear to others: I also see the GRG tables as being a bunch of names on a list, primarily because the "scientific validation" process isn't described anywhere on the site. Ca2james (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this person is oldest person ever in French Guiana and passes WP:GNG. I think that article of Olympe Amaury is should be deleted than this article because younger than Eudoxie Baboul's current age.--Inception2010 (talk) 12:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC) — Inception2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

She is currently the oldest person in French Guiana but she will not be the oldest person there forever; eventually, someone will be older. Since notability is not temporary, the fact that she is currently the oldest is not a basis for notability. Moreover, the fact that she has received only limited coverage (French Guiana has a population smaller than the city I live in, and no news agency outside of French Guiana has given her coverage) focused on her age is an indication that she does not pass WP:GNG, particularly WP:BLP1E. Ca2james (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to whatever list. Nothing standalone-worthy at all. EEng (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Iain King, amply supported by consensus below. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of the Last Nazi[edit]

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

I came across this by random as a recently accepted AfC candidate. While the initial state of the article gave off the impression that this is a notable book (you can see the original state here), a quick look at the sources shows that they were almost entirely unusable.

The majority of the sources were self-published and primary sources, as it linked to blogs, Goodreads, Amazon, the publisher website, the author's website, and his agent's website. With the exception of the Sun review, I don't think that this book has received any reviews that weren't from blogs. Some larger names are mentioned, but they're only sourced to Netgalley and the author's website, and give off the impression that they are your standard run of the mill book blurbs that authors receive for their book jackets. Book blurbs are 1-2 sentences that are usually written with the intention to get their name on a jacket (raise visibility) and to get the same treatment in return for their books/websites/etc.

A search did not bring up anything that was usable. Other than the article's claim that there was a review in the Sun and the Bookseller announcement that the book rights were purchased, there's really nothing out there. The Pembrokian is not usable as a notability giving RS (although I did leave it since it could back up minor details) since it's an alumni magazine that covers things that alumni does, so it's a primary source. Also given the usage of blogs, Twitter, Amazon sales and reviews, and other unusable sources, I'd like to be able to verify that the Sun review was actually a review before really counting it as a RS.

I'd originally thought that this would just be a quick clean for an article about a topic that was notable, but after cleaning and looking for sources I can't see where this is notable in the slightest. This should not have been accepted through AfC, given that the sources were so incredibly bad. There were a lot of sources, but very few that were usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can see more of a rundown of the sources here. Normally I give a blow-by-blow account of each source, but the issue here is that a lot of the unusable sources were cited multiple times and the cite count was over 100, so this would have been far too excessive. Instead I lumped them by type, although the links are probably about half of that. Some of the cites were from the book itself, but I removed them because they were either being used to back up original research or they were used to back up quotes that I ended up removing. I need to stress that there was a lot of original research in the article since there were a lot of instances where they'd take a quote or material from sources that weren't really about the book to back up their claims. (In one instance they used a Lulu published book!) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here is my version of the page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm almost finished and I'm more disturbed now. Some of the claims in the article aren't even backed up with the sources. For example, source 71 claims that a book blog (which has been called a "magazine interview" in several different places it's sourced) wrote the following sentence: "Secrets of the Last Nazi has just become the bestselling spy story in the UK, and been classified by Amazon USA as a ‘Number One New Release’ in espionage." The only problem with this? The specific quote comes from the "About the Author" section, which is supplied by the author, his agent, or his publisher. This was not a statement written by the blog itself, yet it's portrayed as if it was making this claim. This is extremely deceptive and a move that I don't think that the blogger would appreciate. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've finished my individual scrutiny of the sources, which you can view here. The bottom line is that several of the sources are grossly misinterpreted, to the point where there seems to have been done deliberately. The sources are predominantly self-published and primary. Only two are remotely usable and a closer look at the sources gives off the very strong impression that the Bookseller source is taken from a press release, given how very similar it is phrased to a source that is an out and out press release reprint. The Book Show radio appearance might be usable, except that we cannot verify how well it was mentioned and given how the other sources were misinterpreted at times, I don't think that there's any way that we could, in good faith, accept it without having some very reliable editors verify the content and all agree that it's usable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that Cantelo has been alerting anyone who has edited the article of the AfD. I'm not sure if this would fall under WP:CANVASSING or not, since the editors did edit the article, albeit many were just trivial edits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted I think all your deletions. You have deleted references to a book with an ISBN number which quotes this one; a talk show interview; evidence that the book was a best-seller; references to a review in the UK's biggest selling newspaper (which are verifiable); references from the Guardian and Sky News; from award winning blogs; etc etc. WP notability for a book requires only that there are two external references, and that is more than easily met in this case. The other references are not there to provide evidence of notability, but to provide information that improves the article - your deletion of them amounts to good-faith vandalism.Cantelo (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep According to Wikipedia's criteria for notability for a page on a book (which are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(books)), a book qualifies if "it has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]" The more-than-one-hundred references for this entry clearly show:
It was reviewed in the UK's biggest selling newspaper (verifiable here and if you look at the newspaper in a library, which is what I did;

It was the subject of a protracted radio show programme (verifiable here and if you downloaded the programme on the listen again service, which I did.

It features in another book - by Hans Tridle, on page 7, and verifiable on Google books.

It was features in bookseller magazine (verifiable through a link in the page itself);

It was the subject of many, many very substantial literary reviews by established critics, some of which have won awards and cannot be considered trivial (again, see references on the page itself);

And it has features in Amazon's best seller lists (again, evidenced in references in the piece).

It more-than-easily meets the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia.Cantelo (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on the talk page, but here's the thing: you NEED to be able to provide sources that give notability. You also need to have sources that can be verifiable per Wikipedia's guidelines. You use a LOT of self-published sources in this case - a lot of blogs, Twitter reviews, and the like. Self-published sources are almost never considered to be reliable in any way (notability or otherwise) because they undergo little to no editorial oversight. This means that anyone can publish anything on a blog and make a claim. The claims that one of the blogs was award winning does not hold any water on here because the blog's award was an award from another blog - meaning a SPS got an award from another SPS. Very, very few awards are the type that would give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines or make something a reliable source. This award is not one of the awards that would be an exception to this. As far as the ISBN goes, the book was published through Lulu, a self-publishing website that is notorious for publishing everything "as is". There is zero editorial oversight and they have published a lot of things that would not even begin to be seen as a reliable source. The reason I removed the talk show interview is because there is nothing on the site to verify that this interview was ever held and I also don't see a lot on the website about the show's editorial process or the process for the company as a whole. Not every talk show is one that would give notability. I also have to note that several of the sources you added were things like Twitter reviews from random people, Amazon reviews, Goodreads reviews, blog reviews... none of which are in places that Wikipedia particularly cares about. Anyone can write a blog review and those are almost never used in an article because anyone can write a blog. To put it bluntly, Wikipedia does not care about self-published reviews. Amazon rankings also do not matter, as it's a merchant site and those are almost never acceptable as a source in any context. Plus Amazon rankings do not count towards notability per the rules at NBOOK. Now the thing about external sources is that it ultimately depends on the strength of the sources. The only two usable sources were from the Sun (which we cannot verify since it appears to not be online) and a brief article from the Bookseller. These are not the strongest sources and given how unreliable the other sources are, I have to question the strength of the source we cannot verify. I also have to ask: what is your relation to the book/article? I have a strong suspicion that you are a paid editor or someone with an otherwise strong conflict of interest. You can still edit with one, but you do need to disclose this on your userpage. This article is just too full of original research and some of the content is fairly promotional - too much for it to be done by someone who does not have a conflict of interest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rundown of the sources mentioned at this AfD specifically: (several of these are listed several times over in the article in various formats, link to the website, link to the Twitter feed, etc)
1. Twitter. This is a Twitter post. It does not show how indepth the review was. Given the weakness of the overall sourcing, I think that verifying this in some form or fashion is important.
2. Twitter. Another post, but this doesn't really go into how indepth the interview is. I also have to question whether or not it is really usable, given the lack of editorial oversight visible on the page for the show. The episode itself is not on the website that's listed on the page.
3. Hans Tridle book. This is the one that is published via Lulu. It doesn't cover the book, but I need to note that since it is a SPS, this cannot be used to back up even basic data since Lulu is notorious for releasing anything, including books that have contained incorrect data. Heck, Lulu is actually on Wikipedia's blacklist, if that gives any indication of how disreputable of a source Lulu can be.
4. Bookseller. This is usable, although I will note that it is brief and to be honest, is the type of article that looks to have been heavily taken from a press release - something that many companies, Bookseller included, will do with press releases. However this is one of the articles I left on the page in this version of the page.
5. The critics: These are almost solely book blogs and Twitter posts. Some of them are cited multiple times to the same review, but through different media, which gives off the impression that there were more people covering the book than there actually were. Some of the reviews are actually book blurbs, which I've defined above.
6. Amazon rankings. Amazon rankings, to put it bluntly, mean nothing on Wikipedia, mostly because these can be very easily altered and because they have so many categories. This also doesn't include the times that books get higher ranked because there's an organized attempt to buy its way up the ranks and when the book was released for free. I'm not saying that King did anything like this, but the fact is that this has happened in the past and this, along with the fact that Amazon does not keep track of its rankings in a way that the NYT does with their book lists, is a reason why this was unanimously considered to be a reason why merchant rankings are not considered to be of any note for Wikipedia. It's actually specifically cited as an exclusion on WP:NBOOK with the bestseller lists.
This book just isn't notable enough. All we really have is one brief article that was likely based on a press release and one review that cannot be verified at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be accepting only online sources (not The Sun, for example, back copies of which are available in UK public libraries), and you don't accept verifiable references to those sources (such as the Sun's own twitter feed, or the twitter feed of The Book Show); and you don't accept verifiable references to the Sun in multiple places. Is this correct, and can you justify this with wiki policy? Re the bookshow, the interview was on the website, but was deleted after seven days, as per their policy. I listened to it, and heard the interview, which lasted about fifteen minutes (they interviewed four authors in the one hour programme) Cantelo (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your sources is that you use some of them in a very deceptive fashion - something that you're getting called out for at RS/N. Because some of the claims you make are so outlandish, I want to be able to verify every source used in the article, including the ones that are not online. I also need to know your conflict of interest here because I doubt that you are someone who randomly discovered the book. All COI must be disclosed in your userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat again, I just read the book. I did randomly discover it, because I was browsing Amazon and it was recommended to me by the Amazon algorythm. Please assume good faith. I have not used sources deceptively; I have tried to use as wide a range of sources as possible to inform the page, which is the point of Wikipedia. You seem to have misrepresented what I wrote and the way I have used sources, but I will assume good faith on your part. What is RS/N? And can you please answer this: You seem to be accepting only online sources (not The Sun, for example, back copies of which are available in UK public libraries), and you don't accept verifiable references to those sources (such as the Sun's own twitter feed, or the twitter feed of The Book Show); and you don't accept verifiable references to the Sun in multiple places. Is this correct, and can you justify this with wiki policy? Re the bookshow, the interview was on the website, but was deleted after seven days, as per their policy. I listened to it, and heard the interview, which lasted about fifteen minutes (they interviewed four authors in the one hour programme)Cantelo (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or WP:TNT at best~~ or Redirect to Ian King This article is is so filled with bad and/or questionable sources that it is best to nuke it and if a couple of good sources can be found in the dross create a new neutral article without all of the puffery. A quick look through the sources show a massive overuse of non-RS material to try to show notability and puff up the significance of the book. The best I can find searching for reviews is a press release. Fsils WP:GNG and I see no evidence it passes WP:NBOOK. I also fear, based on the citation overload, that there may be a conflict of interest issue to deal with as well. Jbh ^Talk 11:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the history Tokyogirl79 did a good job of cleaning up the article but then was wholely reverted by Cantelo bringing the article back to the atrocious state we see it in now. Even with all her work there is not enough for the subject to pass GNG or NBOOK. The sources that remain are poor, I can not read the Sun review but, at best that is only one 'significant' "reliably" published review. Jbh ^Talk 11:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amended !vote. No objection to Redirect. Jbh ^Talk 07:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a blatant attempt to generate buzz for a book published by "a fast growing UK based digital publishing imprint open for unsolicited submissions of all fiction genres" - i.e. possibly a vanity press. This article needs nuking as blatant promotion. The conduct of its creator also needs investigating because this looks very Orangemoody. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a book review club or a book seller. Poor RS sources and clearly a promotion work. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a rather desperate attempt to smash as many tweets and blogs and the like into one article as possible, to pretend there's notability for a non-notable eBook. Cannot even verify that a "Tom Wright" writes for The Sun, but even if he did it'd be hard to take a book review seriously from a source that advertises "‘Alien corpse’ found at site of the meteor blast that wiped out dinosaurs", among other gems. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was once libelled by Dominc Mohan. Just sayin'. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has at least three strong sources: the Sun, the radio interview and the Bookseller magazine article. It clearly meets notability rules. It also looks like the author has tried to be neutral, giving equal space to negative reviews as well as positive ones. If you don't like the tone, or think the article is promotional, then change it. But it should be kept because it more than easily qualifies by the criteria. Tippex for the soul (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC) — Tippex for the soul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Cramming it full of tweets and promotional language and reverting anyone who tries to tone it down is not trying to be neutral. If the book does deserve an article (and since it's published only as an ebook by an unknown publisher, that seems pretty unlikely), this would not be the article. On a number of grounds. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether the book is notable or not, this article is obvious promofluff, and should just be nuked. Choor monster (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is getting a little mad, and a little nasty. Secrets of the Last Nazi is a paperback, which is how I read it - this is verfiable: you can buy the paperback (link to sales site reverted). There are lots and lots of sources about the book, several of which are notable and most verifiable. I did not revert all attempts to 'improve' the article, just the vandalism from one author which deleted a hundred references. To argue that this book doesn't meet the notability criteria you have to believe that twitter accounts at both The Sun and Talk Radio Europe were hacked. Is anybody seriously saying that? No. So it's notable, OK? Cantelo (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any doubt that you were here for some purpose other than blatant sales promotion, your inclusion of a completely pointless sales link makes that doubt nonexistent. Choor monster (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting surreal. I'm not allowed to use offline sources because they can't be 'verified', and I'm not allowed to produce links to things which verify my sources because it's promotion. Can you just take off your lynch mob hat, please, presume good faith - or at least an open mind - then do google searches yourself - you'll see this really is a paperback. Is there any community spirit on Wikipedia? Cantelo (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if we could verify The Sun's review beyond a Tweet about it, it wouldn't be enough. This Chick Reads, The Welsh Librarian, and Writing Belle are all paid reviews. While that doesn't mean they can't be used in the article necessarily, it does mean they don't contribute to the subject's notability. The Bookseller source looks to be a press release. Even if all of these were legitimate, coverage is still pretty poor -- but they're not legitimate. Fails WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, these are all routine book blogs. I could sign up with an account (or into my own abandoned, but formerly popular-ish book blog) and write an article in ten minutes. The problem with accepting these is that they're ultimately self-published sources and if they're true to form with most book blogs, they were likely solicited by the publisher, agent, or author. Basically, retaining them on the article is a slippery slope: blogs are rarely used to back up reception on any type of article and allowing them to be used as a non-notability giving SPS on one article is pretty much inviting them to be used on another article. If we allow them in one article then we'd need to allow them in every article - and doing this would seriously damage Wikipedia's credibility. Like it or not, there are people who look at our articles and say "they used it in that article, so it must be a reliable source". Other people will see it and assume that because we used a blog in one article, that it must be a reliable source. Now some might say "but it's just a review", but people claim things in reviews as well - history factoids, claims about an author, and so on. You can see this being done to various extents with this article. What's to stop someone from using a blog to back up something potentially contentious and then argue for the blog's inclusion because it won't show notability and is only used to back up an opinion? Not to mention that this would only fuel arguments that Wikipedia is beyond unreliable and shouldn't be accessed. This is why we should only use SPS if they've been thoroughly vetted in RS. Granted it's unlikely for the entire Wikipedia to topple over one article (that's likely to be deleted) but arguments can pile up over time. (Preaching to the choir, but still there's reason for concern with this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bookoutre solicits authors to submit books and does not pay advances. [12]. No information on whether or not they charge up front fees or not. Based on what I have been able to find out on the web they publish as ebook and print-on-demand. Not sure this is much better than a vanity press. Jbh ^Talk 17:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhododendrites. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
1. Trimmed the article in line with WP:PRIMARY: [13]
2. Made into a redirect to Iain King#Novelist: [14]

As I said at WP:RSN there's little doubt this will become over time a separate article on the book, only there's not enough (yet), so a redirect to a section on the author's article should suffice for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the type of sourcing used in this article, I really think that the main article for the author should be seen as extremely suspect. It looks like the same type of sourcing is used in the author's article, so I'm going to go over that and if it's as poor as this article is, I'll nominate that as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at the author's article shows that there is a similar notation style with sources and it also tends to use merchant sources to back up quotes. In one instance it uses a Barnes and Nobles merchant link to back up the quote "ripping apart traditional tenets of morality, dismantling even the golden rule that you should 'do unto others as you would have done unto you". This is a quote used in the book jacket and in the main article it is used as if it was a review. In other words, there seems to be the same deceptive use of sources as in this book article. If this is the same user that created the book article, I'd like to petition that he not be allowed to edit anything related to King. If it's another editor who did this, then we need to take a good hard look at that editor's habits since this is not acceptable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No prejudice against appropriate trimming of the Iain King article to WP:V and RS standards. At first glance, with the caveat that I'm new to the topic, I suppose there'll be enough left to make the author pass WP:GNG/WP:AUTHOR, but indeed, severe trimming would be warranted afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm wondering if he even merits an article, to be honest. The sources are done in a very similar manner and offhand I'm getting the strong impression that this is a paid editing ring. Once I'm done with checking out the sources on his article and looking to see who made what edits, I'm opening up an ANI thread and a sockpuppetry check. I would recommend against redirecting this to the author's page until the sources have been run through and vetted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, please don't redirect this until the AfD is closed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please keep to one noticeboard. My replies are at WP:RSN#Help with an AfD?. I'll re-instate the redirect for now, let's concentrate on smarting up the author's article (which is not under threat of being deleted anywhere soon). There are quite probably enough RSs to keep that article, I found some not even used in the author's article yet, as mentioned at RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Tokyogirl79, as a result of the temp redirect I spent a long time looking at the wrong article.Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken, stop redirecting the article. THis is still at AfD and redirecting it prematurely gives off the impression that it is closed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Iain King probably deserves an article, but at the present 'his' article is full of puffery, randomly he is said to have negotiated with Sinn Féin/IRA, the source (his local paper), says he was amongst those who held discussions with on them on behalf of Liberal party, who (being out of power), could not negotiate anything. King, on inspection was a 1-year 'press-fellow'at Wolfson, notable, but not the same as being a fellow. Everywhere I looked, I found similar inflated claims, often with dubious sources, there is probably enough real achievement, but at the moment it's hard to see what it really is. Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my concern as well. I think that he's possibly notable, but I'd have to go through the sources first. If he is notable, the old article would need to be TNT'd to discourage reversion to the previous puffery. I have no problem writing his article if this is the case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete book per Tokyogirl79, Guy, and Rhododendrites, insufficient evidence of notability. Pincrete (talk) 09:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hat Fic[edit]

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

I don't want to know about the hamster. BeowulfBrower (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanne Anderson[edit]

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

Non notable IMO. She served as a campaign manager at State Senate level and is currently a deputy chief of staff, neither of which are notable. She has received an industry body award but don't believe that meets the definition of significant in WP:ANYBIO #1. This is an industry organisation you pay to join and the award is a case of them patting each other on the back Gbawden (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncertainty over the significance of the award is what prevented me from speedying or PRODding the article. Given Gbawden's characterization of it, I can't make a case for a finding of notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or any other notability requirement. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person who won an obscure award. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The High Class Person (Hong Kong)[edit]

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

Both the Chinese and English Wiki articles have existed about the same time but no improvement has ever been made and my searches (including the Chinese name) simply found nothing good aside from links for something else. Granted, this is a generic name but I still would've found something and there was none so I'm not seeing any possible improvement here. Pinging author Kiteinthewind. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a neologism that fails WP:GNG; the Chinese version is similar. This is more suitable for Wikia. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources to support keeping this as an academic topic. Could be OR on an otherwise likely notable topic such as social class in Hong Kong or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches showed nothing that would meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to HEENT examination. -- GB fan 12:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HEENT[edit]

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

purely dictionary article. Rathfelder (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to HEENT examination. As stated we are not a dictionary, so I would also support deletion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HEENT examination as a plausible search term. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems much the best solution. Done it.Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaderypoluki[edit]

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

There is no indication that this term exists in English; even the given reference doesn't use the term. The word exists in Polish, but it doesn't seem to be anything other than a cryptographic tool. Primefac (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Heck, at this point, we can't even verify it exists. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 04:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that plwiki is the only other Wikipedia with this article means that this likely fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It does exist. There's even an app for it. However, definitely does not meet WP:GNG. At this point, Wiktionary is the better option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 2276[edit]

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

I feel slightly bad nominating this for AfD so quickly after its creation, but from what I can see this looks to be a fairly non-notable incident on a flight. No one was seriously injured and no one died, so this looks to be fairly routine coverage of what's ultimately a pretty minor incident. I don't really think that this merits an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a minor incident, or a major setback for RollsRoyce Trent engine manufacturer remains to be seen. I would ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination at this time. We can kill it later, and for now use it to gather technical info not served by the news sources, to be folded into the British Airways article. This is also the same type of aircraft which disappeared for as yet unexplained reasons over the Indian Ocean Flight MH370. --Mareklug ^talk 04:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's something to do with the plane type then we could always merge it into the article for the specific type of plane or manufacturer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a significant aviation event as it is the first fire in service for a General Electric-powered 777 (this was actually a GE90-powered example) that would result in a hull loss. - AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage for this is fairly light, though- if it is really significant there would be more coverage out there. The fire was contained and no one was killed, so it seems to be a fairly minor incident overall. The coverage seems fairly routine. Also, if this is notable simply because of the type of plane, then this could probably be merged to the article for the plane. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it already classified as "hull loss". The BBC news web report has the airport saying fire put out in five minutes from call, and its still intact. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly, more details need to be added to this article, but I do not think it deserves to be deleted. This emergency stands in stark contrast to British Airtours 28M that suffered severe engine failure during take-off, aborted the take-off and pulled of the runway, similar to this, but where many of the passengers died. I think the contrast is significant. Nutster (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable for the highly unusual nature of the event. (sdsds - talk) 05:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did you see the pictures? Engine billowing smoke, big fire, plane probably a write-off, full evacuation. Engine fires like this are no joke. Very serious, major coverage in all news outlets.New Media Theorist (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per AEMoreira042281 and New Media Theorist. Most of the time, a seemingly non-notable aviation incident translates into something even bigger. After all, many of them later become precedents for future aviation rules. If neither of this happens, we can renominate for AfD later. In my opinion, it's better to see where this goes than to just outright delete it in the beginning. Gparyani (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly a notable aviation incident when a modern commercial aircraft has a hull-loss fire with full use of evacuation slides even BEFORE takeoff. Early hours yet: likely there will be much broader/deeper media coverage to come. AfD nomination was excessively hasty. Ian Page (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel like this AfD was too hasty. Due to the amount of press coverage on this topic, it is likely someone will search this topic up and find this article, which has a rather unsightly deletion notice at the top. I think this would attract even more press coverage into this discussion, and could portray our community in a negative light. So not only does my "keep" !vote still apply, but I think that this AfD should be closed early for this reason. (Note that I mistakenly tagged this article as a hoax minutes before reliable sources started covering it, and I've since realized my mistake.) Gparyani (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At the very least, this incident appears to be similar to Air France Flight 358, in that it involved a rapid and successful evacuation of a burning widebodied aircraft, and may therefore provide significant guidance for the conduct of future such evacuations. The evacuation in the BA incident can also be contrasted with the much less successful evacuation in Asiana Airlines Flight 214, which was from a very similar aircraft. In that regard, there has already been substantial social media discussion of the fact that so many of the passengers in the BA incident took their cabin baggage with them, contrary to the received wisdom as to how evacuations should be carried out. Bahnfrend (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Ok, I'll withdraw. I still don't see where this is notable enough for an article and I think that a lot of the keep arguments here are based on WP:CRYSTAL (most of you are arguing that it'll likely be notable based on coverage that has yet to happen), but it doesn't look like this would close as a delete or a merge. I still think that at best, this was too soon for an article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable enough to make headline news. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BlackShot[edit]

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

This was originally deleted via WP:PROD and I was going to see if I could improve the page, but a search brings up nothing to show that this game is ultimately notable enough for an article. It's possible that there might be sources in Korean, but a search for "BlackShot" and Vertigo brought up nothing useful.

If usable Korean sources can be found then I'm willing to withdraw, but the lack of chatter and coverage in English doesn't really give off the impression that there are a lot of Korean language sourcing either. (Usually if something is well enough covered in a foreign language to pass notability guidelines there will be more fan chatter and I just don't really see it.) There are press releases and a few WP:TRIVIAL sources, but not anything really major. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources:

https://www.facebook.com/blackshotsea?fref=ts https://www.facebook.com/BlackShotEu?fref=ts http://blackshot.browsergamez.com/news/4999/1/blackshot-grand-rebirth-brings-mastery-system.html http://www.mmobomb.com/giveaway/blackshot-free-items http://mmohuts.com/video/blackshot-global-cs51-sneak-preview http://www.fpsreport.com/news/71-blackshot/1457-blackshot-update-adds-fastest-urf-mode-events-and-more.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliceatvertigo (talk • contribs) 05:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE- This MMO only lasted 5 years before being "closed" [15]. Searches bring up zero news hits for this game, I couldn't even find reviews for this game. This all points to failing WP:GNG and WP:NGAME.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 12:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Nothing found to support notability. ABF99 (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Turn to You (George Jones song)[edit]

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

Song doesn't meet WP:NSONG, and through searches on News, Highbeam, Books and JStor, nothing but a very few trivial mentions, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG either. I'd say merge to Wine Colored Roses, except there is very little here that could be used in the other article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The single meets, WP:NALBUMS #2 "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." and was released on 5 albums.[16] The article is not an orphan, and I have a couple of references to add. 009o9 (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Additional comment I've added a couple of references, and again, this is an officially released Single, which falls under WP:NALBUMS, not WP:NSONG (ie a track from an LP, which was not released as a single, would be considered a song). The Single charted, was published for radio and undoubtedly was in radio rotation, seeing how George Jones was already a Grammy Award winner[17] and had 13 number one Coungry hits at that time. Additionally, let's consider WP:DISCRIMINATE, somebody put a lot of work into creating this collection as evidenced by the horizontal infobox in the footer. 009o9 (talk) 06:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's why there are two criteria - one for albums (which this is not), and one for singles, which this is. Where you quote from is the generic test, and refers to either albums and singles, before breaking it down into the individual criteria. It makes no sense that EVERY single on a notable album has inherited notability from the album's notability. And while I respect the effort, this is simply about notability. Which this single doesn't qualify. The guideline is quite specific, "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response the single has its own notability, #26 on the Country charts (passes WP:NALBUMS #2 for notability). According to AllMusic, the song is also notable, because it appeared on five albums including the RIAA Gold Record and four additional greatest hits albums from other major labels (passes WP:NALBUMS #5 for notability). I'm also very sure that the single passes WP:NALBUMS #6 for Top 40 radio rotation, but that would probably have to come from another editor who might own hardcopy for data on those spins. I would not be opposed to a merge, if you did the work, maintained a redirect to the new section (in the album article), retain the references I provided and the single infobox for its informative value. I think it is ridiculous, to nominate these established articles, with complete disregard to how many redlinks it creates. Additionally, simply providing a redirect to the root of the parent article, is not encyclopedic, nor what the reader expects when following a link. 009o9 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - you keep referring to the notability requirements for an album, which this is not. I'm not proposing a merge, since this article has nothing to add to the parent article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response The first eight words of WP:NALBUMS are, "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings..." WP:NALBUMS #2 clearly states: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart." I contend that the single infobox has useful information and that a redirect should be provided to a new section in Wine Colored Roses, as a proper redirect landing location. I'm opposed to simply deleting the article and ignoring the redlinks and other consequences that the deletion would create. 009o9 (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response - and then the guidelines clearly make a distinction between the two. Yet you continue to ignore that. Interesting. Regardless, we've both made our points, let others comment. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not ignoring the "Singles" subsection of WP:NALBUMS, the single passes WP:NRV requirement there. Incidentally, because the song charted, it also passes a portion of WP:NSONGS #1, which has a higher threshold, but again, this is an article about a Single, an independent release, not a song. 009o9 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Survivors Club[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability standards WP:NN. Site was launched and failed in 2009. Relaunched in 2010 with Hearst media. No pages on Wayback machine. Baed on reddit links, looks like in closed in 2011 https://www.reddit.com/domain/thesurvivorsclub.org/
The only verifiable references are: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29805845/#.Vd40HCiA3kc (incidental mention)
http://www.prlog.org/10930504-hearst-magazines-digital-media-launches-thesurvivorscluborg-on-its-proprietary-platform.html (press release) Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete for now as although the article is sourced, it could be better and my searches found results mostly for the book, not the website. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per nom and SwisterTwister. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Limitless[edit]

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

Fails general notability: minimal coverage; possibly promotional. Blackguard 21:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This artist isn't notable enough for having a page now. Maybe he'll do fine in the future, but he's just starting out now basically. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found no better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 22:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing on search engines shows they meet either WP:GNG or WP:MUSBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that this BBC article provides what could be considered as significant coverage, but on Wikipedia, topic notability requires qualification with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (more than one source). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Winjit[edit]

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

non notable. The reference pretended to be an article in The Hindu is marked on their site as a press release. The siliconindia article isn;'t marked, but that's what it is also. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 17:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - It's worth noting this article was actually deleted in 2008 by Jimfbleak as G11 and my searches find nothing to suggest better sourcing and notability with results such as this, this and this. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meets WP:ORG nor it have significant coverage. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 12:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No signs of notability. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 06:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Albert[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actress. Quis separabit? 17:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her only accomplishment at this point is winning a reality show in the Philippines. Fails WP:NACTOR. Me5000 (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. 121.54.54.170 (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of tz database time zones. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

America/Juneau[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence this is a notable topic, simply an identifier code as unencyclopedic database listings. Test nom for the 200+ articles in Category:tz database, none of which have outside references establishing notability as individual articles. Could all definitely be redirected to List of tz database time zones, though it's a lot to do by hand. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which article did you nominate for deletion? The target is a redirect to Juneau, Alaska and has stayed redirect since 2009.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see, it is America/Juneau. I modified the nomination accordingly.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me that this kind of detailed information about time zones is encyclopedic and appropriately included as a part of Wikipedia's gazetteer function. The data could be collected in an article compiling the content of multiple articles, but this would be an editorial decision; I don't think deleting this information outright would improve the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it seems all pertinant information is already in List of tz database time zones, so the individual aritlces could be deleted/redirected there. Reywas92^Talk 03:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect somewhere per Arxiloxos, as I agree that this helps to achieve our gazetteer function. However, the naming convention and its context as a standalone article are confusing to me. Furthermore, it may very well mislead people into thinking that Southeast Alaska is in a separate time zone. That area was joined with the Alaska Time Zone over three decades ago; prior to that, it was in the Pacific Time Zone. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question – I just went through Category:Tz time zones in the United States, which contains 19 other articles exactly like this one, including several instances of titles containing underscores instead of spaces. Is this really the only article we're discussing, or does this discussion pertain to all of the articles in that category? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an enormous hassle to tag a couple hundred articles for a bundled discussion so this is a test case, but yes, those and everything in Category:tz database could all be deleted or merged/redirected to List of tz database time zones. Reywas92^Talk 03:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge per Reywas92. And yes, all of the articles similar to this one as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spend a lot of time looking, but it appears that all this same info was added to the various "Time in XXXX" articles, possibly to time zone articles as well. From what I saw, the contextual issues I refer to above still persist, as it didn't appear cohesive with the rest of the article or written with a general audience in mind. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pangenom[edit]

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

Probably not a notable concept. Even ignoring the misspelling of the title of the article, repeated by its author in his every use of the word here and in correspondence, it isn't clear that this is any more than one writer's personal conception, itself, in turn, just a generalization of the concepts already discussed at Pan-genome. I didn't locate any discussion of this version of the concept by anybody else. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note: The article was created by User:Georgetets (with an "s"). The person whose paper he cites is V.V. Tetz (with a "z"), who appears to be Victor V. Tetz, who has written other papers on genomes—in collaboration with a George Tetz, also with a "z". Make of it what you will. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The name is misspelled (the single quoted reference calls it 'pangenome') and the WP article is terribly written. After a look at Google Scholar, my impression is that the article currently presented as "Pangenom" is a concept proposed 10 years ago that took no apparent hold in the field of molecular biology and therefore made no impact, so it lacks notoriety. All the sources in the literature I saw, use the term pangenome (or pan-genome) in the context of the sum of all the genes in a given species, in a clade or even in a Kingdom. BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator has just added a list of papers to the article. I looked at one, to which I had full-text access. The word "pangenom" appears nowhere in it. It cites the V.V. Tetz paper espousing his theory on pangenomes, but there's no indication that the concept of an all-encompassing pangenome is itself what the writer took from that source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The whole article is still backed by a single paper only, which had no impact in the field on genomics. Are we done yet? BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have flagged it for copyright violation. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arukas Cup Six Man Tag Tournament[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Random one-night six-man tag team tournament with no significance. No indication this is an annual tournament as stated in the article. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 13:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent in-depth sources, fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG Kraxler (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and nothing to show the event is notable.Jakejr (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novus (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable professional wrestling group. Lasted for half a year, before disbanding and achieved nothing in those months. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 13:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable wrestling group. Short lived group of 4 wrestlers that fails WP:ORG. Also fails WP:GNG with no significant independent coverage. A link to one of the members doesn't show notability.Jakejr (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editor. Searches turned up nothing to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Road to Keiji Muto Tournament[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Random tournament for rookie wrestlers none of whom are notable enough for their own articles. No indication this is an annual tournament as stated in the article. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 13:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG, only refs in the article are from Tumblr Kraxler (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. None of the references or external links are from reliable and independent sources. There's also no indication this was a notable event. Jakejr (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armory (software)[edit]

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

No good refs - just own web site, a forum and what appears to be a system spec. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note - added soms possible refs, but have not finished standard searches, so no comment yet on notability. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG. Since something like List of Bitcoin wallets does not exist, there is nothing to merge this article to. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as although my searches found more results here and here, I suppose we can delete this until better solid coverage is made. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darker (song)[edit]

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

Didn't chart. I tried to redirect with explanation, was reverted without explanation, so bringing here instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A song or single doesn't have to be a huge hit to be notable. It's single that is off of a very popular album, it followed two other hit singles, On the Regular, Call It Off, by this same artist, Shamir. It's notable enough for that and has enough media coverage to be notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a song has to be a "hit" to be notable. The entirety of the policy on individual songs says "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article.". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails Wikipedia:NSONGS. Above comment seems to rely purely on Wikipedia:INHERITED. No independent third party coverage. Azealia911 _talk 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Fails NSONGS and GNG. Cavarrone 06:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and above editors. Searches did not turn up anything to show the standalone notability of this song. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Halil Özgür[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Only search results are linkedin. CSD was removed by an account other than the creator so it has to go to AFD. Savonneux (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person is an executive in a multinational corporation which is handling large scale water and electricity supply projects in Middle East,Africa and Asia. Numerous references can be found.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moustafasallam (talk • contribs) 13:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your links are bad. Just taking the first one for example though [18] is a press release about the company the company works for and doesn't even pass muster as a WP:RS for the company. It also doesn't even mention that individual by name. I suggest reading WP:BIO for the notability guidelines on inclusion of biographies.--Savonneux (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from reliable sources to assert notability. — ξ ^xplicit 06:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches turn up mentions and press releases. Nothing to show that this person meets the notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE, as an expired prod due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mannequint[edit]

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON for this non-notable play Flat Out (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to Changqi, Hongjiang. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changqi village[edit]

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

Unremarkable place. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 06:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article now has local government sources verifying the existence & basic details of the place. See WP:GEOLAND. No obvious merge target, since we don't have an article on the next-higher-up administrative division (Longtian, Hunan). If kept, should probably be moved to Changqi, Hunan or something per WP:NC-ZH#Place names. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May not be remarkable, but amply meets the notability guideline for geographical features and locations. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home and Soul[edit]

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

Does not pass notability. Anything in news releases are just passing by refs. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This firm just doesn't seem that notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable organisation. -KH-1 (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as my searches found nothing to suggest better improvement with the best results here. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boone Mall[edit]

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

Two of the three sources are news about the mall flooding and don't count per WP:NOTNEWS. That leaves one article which only contains one short paragraph about the mall. I found one halfway decent source saying the mall was renovated, but could not find any other sources. Fails WP:GNG. Me5000 (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that the article should. There are plenty of other mall related pages that are worse than this one. --ACase0000 (talk) 04:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject-specific notability guideline applicable here is WP:ORG. Google News finds some sources, but the overwhelming majority is local coverage intended for a local audience (lots in the High Country Press), thus not satisfying WP:AUD. Even coverage about the flooding is all exclusively local [19][20]. There does appear to be any national level coverage that would separate this mall from all the other malls in the world—see WP:MILL. As for the other mall-related pages that may be worse, I don't find that a very convincing reason to keep this one, as many articles exist on Wikipedia that probably shouldn't—see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mz7 (talk) 04:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OSE isn't a valid rationale for keeping a bad article. Mz7 and the nom give the best summaries of why this article should be deleted. Nothing in the engines showed anything which would make this mall notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Holwerda (editor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of the managing editor of a website, referenced exclusively to primary sources with not a whit of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that he's notable for anything more than existing. Also probable WP:COI, as it was created by User:Tholwer. As usual, Wikipedia is not a public relations database on which anybody is entitled to post an unsourced profile of themselves for promotional purposes, if reliable source coverage isn't there to support it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches on the engines only turned up a few brief mentions on News, nothing to rise to the level of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

București Mall[edit]

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

Only contains 2 sources one of which is a wp:primary source. I can't find any other sources for this mall. Fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be Romanian sources at ro:București Mall. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ample sources in the German and Romanian articles to establish notability. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Romanian article appears to have enough sources, so if used here, it would be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Romanian sources in the Romanian article does seem to indicated passing WP:GNG. Don't know how the could not find other sources beside those listed in this article when all they had to do was click on the Romanian one and see them.--Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gala Club[edit]

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

I considered speeding or PROD but, as this is a foreign subject, I'm not sure if it's simply unknown but my searches found nothing at all. Pinging Godsy and Jhona43 for comment. SwisterTwister talk 01:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Soccer-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can't find anything about it in English. The file it contains is up for deletion. I thought it might be a hoax last night; I just did a reverse image search on the logo, and found some potential sources, albeit in Arabic. Unless those sources can be added and establish notability, I'd say deletion is probably the way to go. Could have put it up for WP:A7, as was alluded to above, now that I think about it. Thanks for the ping.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not difficult to find information about this club in the Arab media, such as [21]. As such I'm not sure what the basis for the nomination is. Perhaps User:SwisterTwister could put forward a policy-based argument? Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz Simple, I'm not sure if this is notable or can even be improved. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to see how it can't be improved; copying the info from the Arabic version for one! Also wouldn't a Saudi Third Division team have played in the pre-1990 Kings Cup thus meeting WP:FOOTYN User:SwisterTwister. Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Userfy There is sufficient media coverage to warrant improvement. This article was nominated less than 24 hours after creation - hardly enough time to properly translate Arabic media coverage into English. I also note that the page creator was not notified of AfD nomination, so I have done so. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jkudlick Well, I nominated it because I was alerted by the "hoax" tag and considering there's not much info and no sources (there's hardly much difference from the Arabic Wiki), I took it for commenting. Regarding translating, that's why it's better to start all together (I'm very conscious of bulking my edits as much as possible to lower unnecessary multiple edit clicks). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes it exists, though I see neither sufficient media coverage or sporting achievements to merit notability. Giant Snowman 09:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For now, I can't see GNG unless someone is able to translate the foreign language sources. Fenix down (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear failure of WP:GNG. There is no absolute evidence that this team has competed at the highest level of national cup. Spiderone 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. All "keep" opinions are by socks or by otherwise not established editors (i.e., possible socks). These opinions are therefore discounted. Sandstein 09:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of death[edit]

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

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

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

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

Same concerns apply as the recent decision to delete List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth, namely cruftiness and OR. Chrism would like to hear from you 13:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the arguments put forward in the previous debate. Listcruft. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Definitely "not" WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Boy Named Stu (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)~~ User:Boy Named Stu is the creator of this list. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.[reply]

Comment So I see that you don't contest the claim that this is listcruft... --Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment It isn't listcruft. Boy Named Stu (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep, doesn't seem like cruft to me, either. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Once again my argument is the same in this as it is the other debates on British PMs. Highly notable topics do not qualify as WP:LISTCRUFT. Halftime Hero (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I think a pertinent question here is: Do we really need List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of death, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth (AfD closed as redirect), List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by age (AfD closed as keep) and Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (AfD closed as no consensus) on top of Records of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom? I don't think that juggling the same few personages around in neverending permutations is of any use. Kraxler (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are endless articles of the same statistics on Presidents of the United States. Articles such as these should definitely be reserved for the highest offices e.g. Presidents of the United States, Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, etc. These ones just summarize the statistics of each of the respective topics on British PMs more clearly and more concisely than List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Records of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. There should definitely be more articles like these on world leaders in more countries of the world. Every country in the world, (particularly a well established democracy like Britain) should have similar articles like these. Boy Named Stu (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No country in the world should have similar collections of trivia. As for the US articles: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All high offices of the world deserve similar summaries of statistics like the US articles: WP:POLITICIANS, WP:NOTABILITY. Especially all of the well established ones. I can fully understand why the newer countries wouldn't have them, but in a country that's even older than the US it certainly warrants them. I think I'll leave it at that. Boy Named Stu (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These lists are sortable. If we have one article like this with all significant dates in columns (birth; death; assumed office; left office), the user can sort as he or she pleases. --Slashme (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we only had one article with all of the relevant dates it'd still be one very long article. This one sums up the summary of the deaths of British PMs perfectly, and more importantly, it keeps it brief, which certainly wouldn't be the case if we had everything on one article. My decision for "keep" still stands. Halftime Hero (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep Seems like a highly worthy article to me. I wish there was articles similar to this on Australian PMs. Yawnfully Yellow (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've blocked a few socks, and semi-protected this. Boy named Stu, Halftime hero, and Yawnfully Yellow are all socks. Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Content from blocked socks above has been struck, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NOTABILITY I can't see any reason for deleting it. I also reckon his article has to exist in it's own right as opposed to merging it with List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. ...And Five (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thebandwithnoname[edit]

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

This subject fails the notability standard set in WP:MUSICBIO. Before I nominated this subject, I searched online to attempt to find some news sources regarding this band to attempt to establish its notability, and could only find these groups of articles that even referenced this band: an article about the band's breakup, and several articles from Christian Today about the individual band members themselves after the band broke up. At the present time, none of the band members seem to have articles themselves on Wikipedia, and I could not find information to establish their individual notability either. Also, each of this band's albums may fail WP:NALBUM as well; each of this band's albums are redirects to this article, and not standalone articles. Steel1943 (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ A PROD would have done as well, but clearly fails notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Based on the sources found by The Cross Bearer. I hadn't looked for sources. My bad. The crossrhythms interviews are enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Big Keep A PROD would not have done well! I must show you all Cross Rhythms with four stories on the group and six if not seven reviews of their music, also, a Louder Than the Music interview and a review, making them satisfy GNG and BAND. This band clearly passes notability guidelines with regards to this encyclopedic project.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the notability claim here. Other than the articles at Cross Rhythms (one source), the other sources are only covering the subject around breakup time ... as if they their only claim to fame in other sources than Cross Rhythms was breaking up. Steel1943 (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6, Ilovechristianmusic, Metalworker14, and Walter Görlitz: Louder Than the Music started circa 2008-09, where they would not have been around to review their previous offerings, while Cross Rhythms was the leading Christian music magazine in the United Kingdom, per CCM Sources, presently the biggest on-line Christian music publication in the United Kingdom. The Cross Rhythms' and Cross Rhythms sources cover them in extensive detail, where it lends credibility to the claim of significance, with regards to the band in question.The Cross Bearer (talk) 06:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MUSICBIO: "...[the subject being] the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works..." is the one criterion we both seem to be debating, but the only source that I see publishing anything "non-trivial" is Cross Rhythms, making this subject, in my mind, fail the "multiple" part of that statement since it was all coming from only one source. (Also, what is going on with that multi-WP:PING you just did there? Besides Walter Görlitz, who has already participated in this AfD, none of the other editors have ever edited this article or its talk page.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if most of the coverage is about the band's breakup, there is enough to warrant an article. Over three separate sources discuss the group, which should satisfy notability concerns.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are the three sources, mentioned elsewhere in the discussion, that I am using to support my vote: Cross Rhythms, Christian Today, and Louder Than the Music. Two of these sources, CR and CT, have published multiple, non-trivial articles on this band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close to "no consensus". I feel that a very blatant WP:CANVASS violation just happened above, making it target difficult to form a consensus here. Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steel1943 The Cross Bearer often solicits me for comment, but if you go through previous deletion discussions where they asked me for my comments, you will see that I do not always agree with them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6: Fair enough. Either way, "no consensus" defaults to "keep" on here, but since I still have my opinions, I'm not going to withdraw. My point above is that it is obvious that The Cross Bearer pinged specific editors who have strong ties to this subject matter, so it looked like canvassing to me per the guideline. In fact, you have seemingly validated my concern about that editor; per the way the Ping was set up, to me, it seemed like a "template of editors" that the editor uses to Ping, especially considering that one of them already participated in the discussion before the Ping even happened... Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: I have noticed this "template of editors" use by The Cross Bearer before. I personally don't mind getting pinged for these discussions, as this Christian music is one of my main areas of focus here on Wikipedia. I've often seen other editors ignore The Cross Bearer's pings, though I haven't seen anyone complain before. Since The Cross Bearer below has stated that they will stop pinging in the future, I think this issue is resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have often disagreed with Mr. Gorlitz on matters in deletion discussions. 3family6 and myself were at odds with each other in the Indie Vision Music deletion discussion, where we were on opposite ends of the spectrum. If this failed the notability test, then I would have come down on the or come around to the deletion side of the debate. Another editor nominated Foreverlin, for deletion, where it is hugely similar to this article in question. With all do regards, I will no longer ping or reply to, when it comes to deletion discussions in the future, since it got misconstrued as canvassing.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once the article is referenced and cleaned-up, it should be fine on Wiki - given that there are more than one source about that band, but if left "as-is" I feel it should be deleted. @The Cross Bearer and 3family6: There are a few editors I've worked with in the past that might be helpful to this situation. @Steel1943: I don't mind being brought into these discussions. Ilovechristianmusic (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there's some kind of an issue, then why can't we just have this application for deletion removed and another restarted, based on the new article?

I went in and referenced everything per the sources I found, with inline citations. Thirteen sources from two publications establishes GNG and BAND.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found some additional coverage by Christian Today.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Delete. The given references are insufficiently notable. With only two unique publications among them, it is doubtful that the band's presence was non-trivial. It also seems the band has unfortunately ceased to exist. Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 07:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asgardiator - did you see the coverage provided by those two publications? It is FAR from trivial, at least from Cross Rhythms. The argument here is whether there are enough different publications to warrant an article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe Original Research but this band has reformed and is now playing classic rock covers in Dorset, UK. They were at my local pub recently. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.banddirectory.co.uk/band.asp?b=the-band-with-no-name&t=wimborne&p=dt119hd

Syxxpackid420 That's a different band.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as this seems acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources meet notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/itron-in-smart-meter-pact-with-manas-turkish-water-utility.html

[2] ttps://www.itron.com/newsAndEvents/Pages/Itron-and-Manas-Team-Up-to-Deploy-Innovative-Ultrasonic-Heat-Meters-in-Turkey.aspx

[3] ttp://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120927005374/en/Kocaeli-Water-Sewerage-Administration-Relies-Itron-Consulting#.U6lFN7HCbLs

[4] ttp://www.waterworld.com/articles/2012/10/water-resource-management-program-implemented-at-turkey-water-utility.html

[5] ttp://www.smartmeters.com/the-news/3568-itron-to-deliver-a-water-solution-to-turkey.html

[6] ttp://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/idUS114484+27-Sep-2012+BW20120927

[7] ttp://www.banddirectory.co.uk/band.asp?b=the-band-with-no-name&t=wimborne&p=dt119hd

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]