Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 December 18 December >

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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet WP:GNG --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Oliveira Costa[edit]

Daniel Oliveira Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This soccer player has now 24 years old and still no career. He is still a substitute in a 2e division portuguese club, in short without prospects of doing anything noticeable in an encyclopedia. It pains me but... + The article has had multiple issues for more than a year Rinko87 (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Notability is a threshold and is not temporary and since he must have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources he passes GNG. The lack of any details about him does not mean we should delete. Afd is not for cleanup... and so on and so forth. Legacypac (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 December 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. KTC (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Valentine Constitution[edit]

The Valentine Constitution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rehash of draft constitution proposed by a 2016 presidential candidate. It's a subtle promo for his campaign, probably too subtle for G11, but promotional nonetheless. Bazj (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Draft:Valentine (philosopher) by the same author clarifies the link to the political campaign. Bazj (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - spectacularly non-notable. Not a single hit on any of the search engines (except his own website). Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – article makes it seem like this is an actual constitution, which can be rewritten yet would still be a resounding non-notable creation of a non-notable fringe candidate.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:42, 24 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hammar[edit]

Richard Hammar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. There is a claim of notability... 5o books is a lot to "author", but I didn't find the the claim in the ref & anyway, I would expect decent refs if anybody had bought, read or reviewed any of them. Article needs a good haircut and all. TheLongTone (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, but I could be convinced otherwise with some additional sourcing. This ref from the article is useful for notability, as is this, despite not being independent. But at this point, I don't see the sort of substantial sourcing from independent reliable sources to make the case for notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your feedback, TheLongTone and Hobbes Goodyear! I have added some additional sources. This is my first page and I would welcome any further changes you might recommend to keep it on wikipedia. Cheers,Hml1315092 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hml1315092 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the the new sources provides independent, substantial coverage of the subject. They do not provide a reason to suggest that this subject merits an encyclopedia article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hobbes Goodyear, I've added some sources which I felt were independent. If these are not independent, please consider giving me an example and I will add it.Hml1315092 (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look, but they seem mostly to be from his own publishers or book sellers, none of which could be considered independent. The remainder do not look reliable. (There is one local interest-type piece about a star photo that seems of fairly minor interest, w/r/t notability.) The ref I pointed to originally, a newspaper profile of the subject, is a useful example of reliable, non-trivial source. Similar sorts of pieces from other newspapers or magazines would be helpful, or the equivalent on radio or television, in proportion to the reliability of the source--it need not be the NY Times or 60 Minutes, but a local church's newsletter or a local cable access show would not carry much weight. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) TheLongTone (talk) I would be curious if you find my updates acceptable? Hml1315092 (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- General counsel to a major denomination may well be notable in itself. I expect that the 50 books are largely on legal topics. That they should be published by the denominational publishing house is also unsurprising. However, one someone comes across one of the 50, he (she) may want to know who this guy is. Having said that, this is a bad biography: it concentrates too much on background and far too little on what he has done in the course of a career of over 35 years. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback, Peterkingiron! The 50 books are not published by the denominational publishing house - that is Gospel Publishing House. Richard Hammar's books are published by Christianity Today which has no ties to the Assemblies of God. I will add more about what he has done in his career as you suggested, thanks again Hml1315092 (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The counsel to a group with over 60 million adherents is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 24 December 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. The two delete !votes don't provide policy-based reasons for deletion, while the keep !votes show that, despite its fringe status, the article subject is well-covered by third-party sources. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 08:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Gravity theory[edit]

Rainbow Gravity theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be pseudoscience. The basic idea of different wavelengths of light being affected by gravity makes sense, but that seems to be as far as this goes. Although scientific articles are linked to, most of this theory seems to exist in the popular media rather than the scientific literature. The detailed rebuttal at [3] seems sensible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does seem that there's a non-trivial number of scientific publications about this theory, though I haven't yet had time to look at them properly nor am I sure if they're in reputable journals, so I'm undecided for now. Sam Walton (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even if it is pseudoscience, isn't the issue whether it's notable pseudoscience? After all, we have articles such as Biorhythm, Bermuda Triangle, Chemtrail conspiracy theory and Phrenology, and, while none of those subjects are valid science, I don't think anyone would credibly suggest deleting them for lack of notability. I'm not casting a !vote, at least for the moment, but just want to focus the discussion on notability rather than credibility. If notable (which premise I'm not taking a position on, at least for the moment), I'd rather that the article be retained and the pseudoscientific criticisms be prominently made than that it be deleted. (Disclosure: although I've edited the article, my edits are largely along the lines of cosmetic maintenance and vandalism reversion; I have no real preference as to its retention or deletion.) TJRC (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable junk science. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
"Junk science" is not a policy or guideline basis for deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, "I agree with" recommendations do not receive much weight. WP:PERNOM says that comments adding nothing but a statement of support for a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy, practice, or simple good sense to support their positions. As the WP:Guide to deletion#Discussion says: Always explain your reasoning. ... "!Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. Also unfortunately Xxanthippe did not provide a policy or guideline reason for deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even if it's wrong, it doesn't mean it should get deleted. I think it should stay on the grounds that, yes, this theory was suggested by scientists. The article even acknowledges it's flaws; that's what the criticism section is for so I'm saying keep because it's not just about putting the "correct" theories, this wiki should catalog as many theories exist and note any criticism it may have received.--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it meets WP:GNG, there is plenty of material available. I agree that WP:FRINGE applies, but dealing with that is for the article's talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 22 December 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, only policy-based votes were taken into account--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.A.W.N.[edit]

P.A.W.N. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A company that does laser light shows and music recordings. There are no independent, reliable references about PAWN in the article. For example, in the "PAWN Events" section, the refs mentions the events, but never mention PAWN. Vast majority of the refs never mention PAWN. Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

1.) The Philadelphia Daily News discusses in an interview with Matt Falcone from P.A.W.N. how their most recent event 3D-EDM at Citizen's Bank Park Stadium Parking Lot, which consisted of two area's: a concert stage, and a Drive in Movie Theater included a technology they call "3D Free Space Holography" in which viewers can see 3D images floating in the air with out the use of special 3D glasses accomplished by projecting laser light over a combination of smoke, haze, and a water mist spraying machine; and that they are the only Movie Theater in the world with this technology. [31]


ref name="Philadelphia Daily News: DJ Scotto, Laser Light Show in South Philadelphia">Wagner, Amanda (2012-05-25). "Philadelphia Daily News: DJ Scotto, Laser Light Show in South Philadelphia". Philadelphia Daily News.</ref

  • Keep

2.) Projection, Lights, & Staging News says about P.A.W.N., "The company is one of the first five Laser Light Show companies started and made in the USA." [1]

ref name="PLSN Projection, Lights, & Staging News">Moen, Debi (2012-07-18). "PLSN Projection, Lights, & Staging News". PLSN Projection, Lights, & Staging News.</ref

  • Keep

3.) Mixer Magazine, mentioned in an article about the Future Festival in Atlanta GA, that the magazine spent the majority of their night inside P.A.W.N.'s lights." [9]

ref name="Mixer Magazine: Future Festival ">McElwaney, Scott (1999-11-20). "Mixer Magazine: Future Festival". Mixer Magazine.</ref

  • Keep

4.) Lunar Magazine stated, "P.A.W.N brings out some of the best & brightest lasers they ever seen, many people completely turned their backs to DJ booth to be mesmerized by the lasers."

[1]

  • Keep

The rest of the links are about:

- Mark Anton Read, the Founder of P.A.W.N. and what he did shortly after founding P.A.W.N. and how they are tied into P.A.W.N.

- Reference to the other artists & statements made about them mentioned in the article and how they are tied into P.A.W.N.

- Reference to other events & statements made about them mentioned in the article and how they are tied into P.A.W.N.

- etc, etc, etc...

  • Keep

Looks Good To ME, They all mention directly the name P.A.W.N. in an interview, or about their work.

+ PLUS 32 other supporting references

Mfalc1 (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use multiple !votes. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute says: You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line. --Bejnar (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


WP:ENTERTAINER is about the notability of people, not companies and organizations. The specific guideline would be WP:CORP/WP:ORG. WP:ENTERTAINER is not applicable here. --Bejnar (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it fails to have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, it thus fails WP:GNG. It lacks in-depth coverage and fails WP:CORP. To answer Mfalc1, the author of the P.A.W.N. article (and trying not to bite the newbie),
  1. ) "DJ Scotto, Laser Light Show in South Philadelphia" is the rewrite of a press release about an upcoming event;
  2. ) the squib at Projection, Lights, & Staging News is a press release;
  3. ) the Mixer Magazine article had a single sentence about P.A.W.N.;
  4. ) the "Lunar Magazine article had a single mention of PAWN;
  5. ) the Billboard article talks about the overall EDM Market but does not mention PAWN, nor support the statement P.A.W.N. EVENTS is the 3rd Electronic dance music / Rave Festival Producer in the USA & 1st outdoor EDM Festival Producer in the USA
  6. ) IMDB is not a reliable site (crowd sourced);
  7. ) the articles by Mark Anton Read, the founder of PAWN are not independent. See the essay at WP:Independent sources, and WP:SELFPUBLISH;
  8. ) interviews with the founder are not independent;
  9. ) a number of the cited sources link to http://hypercube.com/wordpress/references/ which is Mark Anton Read's website, but which webpage mentions neither PAWN nor Mr. Read;
  10. ) among the badly linked references is the American Cinematographer article about the children's TV program Lazy Town, which does mention Mr. Read but not PAWN, and which article is actually found as this pdf file;
  11. ) the "Arri News: 4/2010 "Matching Light Sources with the ARRI PAX LED System", page 54." article is an interview with Mark Read, as an interview it is not independent and it does not not mention PAWN;
  12. ) Six Flags Great Adventure show features p.a.w.n. Lasers & Music is a press release;
  13. ) "P.A.W.N. LASERS on TV Channel 6 Action News (12/2013) w/ Grand Hank - Magic And Wonders of STEM" is a youtube video about a TV news article on a careers in science program, it doesn't mention PAWN, but auto links into another youtube video showing a laser show, both videos were uploaded by PAWN;
  14. ) several of the citations in the article make no mention of Mark Read or PAWN for example "Red Bull Music Academy Daily: The Perfect Storm: New York Techno In The Early 9o's" cited for P.A.W.N. is also a Festival Producer & Music Publisher credited with introducing Electronic dance music - to the United States after Frankie Bones's Storm events.
In short, nothing but a few passing mentions, press releases and non-independent interviews, self-written or self-published material. There is no basis for notability. Note: Mfalc1 has been a registered editor since 15 December 2015, and has primarily edited the P.A.W.N. and Frankie Bones articles. --Bejnar (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@38.98.224.98: Participants are encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in Wikipedia guidelines and policy to support their positions. As the WP:Guide to deletion#Discussion says: Always explain your reasoning. ... "!Votes" without rationales may be discounted at the discretion of the closing admin. --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom. Also as per Bejnar's complete and cogent analysis. Well done. None of the keep !votes are based on policy. Onel5969 TT me 15:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bejnar detailed analysis and it lacks third party references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:48, 24 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maxxsonics[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maxxsonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable, very little to say once spam removed. Previous AfD said sources available, but none seem to have been added, only one media source in article, is also only legitimate ref. I like to lean fairly inclusionist, but there is so little to say about this small behind the scenes company that it is blatantly wp:notdirectory at best. B137 (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 30 employees, 1 reliable source, nothing unusual or interesting about the company. I removed all the press releases except for 1. I left that to establish that there is such a company. I'll also make out a report to WP:COIN. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost nothing in Google except their own PR. They're not even getting much mention on "caraudioforum.com", except for stuff their own PR person puts on there. They do get mentions such as "I will say you want to avoid the MB Quart products made since Maxxsonics acquired the brand"[4] and "Hifonics was great in the 80's too, but since the brand was bought by Maxxsonics they have become unreliable and don't have accurate power ratings anymore."[5]. So we have no reliable sources, and the non-reliable sources are rather negative. No way to make a decent article on this. John Nagle (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new TWICE story from November of this year. It supersedes the archived one because it also mentions the Autotek buy, it also should replace the source to the company's own "History" or "About us" page. Still, these are very brief mentions, do not equal nearly the notability that is generally required, and while I believe that bar is sometimes set too high on a project with virtually no bandwidth or storage limit, this falls far short. B137 (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it in for now, but the problem with TWICE is how they sourced this story: "This section of TWICE, "The PR Wire," contains original press releases that reflect the views of the industry organizations issuing them. Releases are not reviewed or edited by TWICE editorial staff. " Shouldn't really be in the article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah better yet then take it out. This article is a clear delete. B137 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article does not meet notability, the only info about the company is press releases that get passed along wire services. Scale is very small, and it does not seem to have much interesting about it. Cocoaguy ここがいい 06:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:59, 25 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum money (Monetary system)[edit]

Quantum money (Monetary system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about a book that appears to be self-published. While two references have been cited, they are general scholarly works that do not actually propose the specific concept. Not notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article, although ostensibly about a concept called "quantum money", appears to be a promotion for a recently self-published book. Not notable. Famspear (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing here that has any support in reliable sources. At best it's a non-notable neologism, at worst, spam for a book. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Promotion for non-notable concept and book.-- Elmidae 14:50, 22 December 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. I'm speedily deleting this as a combination of A7, G10, G11, and maybe more, and a pretty egregious violation of NPOV and NOTORUM. There is no evidence that this office actually exists (A7, maybe), or that there's an actual person occupying it. Phrases like "protects the human rights and fundamental freedoms violated by the state and local self-governing bodies or their officials" are essentially POV because the claim of violation is made without any evidence (thus G10 also); it is a forum post, in that sense, because it argues that violations are committed and this (an ombudsperson) is the way to denounce said unproven violations (G11). I'll ping Artur Abgaryan and point them this way so I don't have to repeat this. Thanks G S Palmer. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human rights defender (Ombudsman) in Armenia[edit]

Human rights defender (Ombudsman) in Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No real indication of notability. Nor does it seem to provide encyclopedic coverage - it reads like a legal document. The sources given aren't media coverage, but rather just a bunch of PDFs on the topic. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 18 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of the pontinha[edit]

Principality of the pontinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-proclaimed micronation on a Portuguese island. I don't see much evidence of notability apart from a few blog articles noting that it got attention by saying that Bitcoin would be made its currency. Blythwood (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't a micronation notable enough for Wikipedia? I've read the rules and I don't understand why it wouldn't be notable enough, especially when it's the first country in the world to adopt Bitcoin as its official currency. I will improve the page by adding more information and relevant sources. This page has already been created in the Portuguese Wikipedia (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principado_da_Pontinha. I'm genuinely curious about why this is not notable, this is one of the type of info I search for in Wikipedia. Aryaedit (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It isn't really "self-proclaimed," it's this guy. He also got a piece published in The Guardian on why he did it. It was this or a sports car, apparently. I've no objection to an article that properly contextualizes what this is -- or maybe an article on the island's purchaser, if that doesn't violate WP:BLP1E (a big if) -- but the stub article as it exists now is rather misleading. Little would be lost if we removed this until such time as someone wants to right a more accurate article, so I think WP:TNT applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept the article should be moved to Principality of the Pontinha (capital P) for proper capitalization. - Nabla (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC) PS: I wonder if his wife agrees that he has absolute power... :-)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, the article should be moved to Principality of Pontinha as more readable, brief, and leaving room maybe enough room for the microstate to install sanitation. I found the tone of the piece in The Guardian amusing. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:40, 24 December 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. KTC (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Nainan[edit]

Dan Nainan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

a) This article is poorly cited, with many of the citations not working, and the use of very minor media sources in India, and furthermore, very few major media outlets have covered him.

b) It is true that he has a lot of citations. But having a lot of sources with one's name does not necessarily mean that one has received significant coverage. If you read through his citations, most of them are of him giving his opinion on something - his opinion on sleep and sobriety, his opinion on Obamacare, his opinion on not having a Christmas tree. Yes the citations state he is an Indian comedian, and maybe a little blurb on his latest performance, but not much else...this is not notability and not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Thatwhoiswise (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Thatwhoiswise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as this has noticeably had almost all vandalism and such this year with one of the most users removing this being Grayfell, and although my searches found several links at Books, News, browsers and Highbeam, there simply may not be enough for a considerably better article here as some of the coverage mostly included testimonials from celebrities and even a fight he was involved with from September 2013. Delete for now at best until a better article is ever available. SwisterTwister talk 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This completely, totally, utterly, redundantly fails WP:ENT. There are a lot of sources, which could theoretically meet WP:BASIC, but most of them are either unusable primary stuff (routine listings for appearances, like the TEDx gigs), or are interviews or articles he wrote about himself. Lots of quirky human interest puff-pieces which demonstrate aggressive self-promotion and the existence of slow news days, but not encyclopedic notability. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 18 December 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DBCS (disambiguation)[edit]

DBCS (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a primary topic and only one other valid meaning. Per WP:TWODABS, this can be handled fine through a hatnote on DBCS. Nick Number (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are three valid entries plus a see also, which is more than what a hatnote should carry. The disambiguation is doing its job fine. -- Tavix (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is now clearly valid, it just needed a search for further entries. Nick Number, would you consider withdrawing AfD now the page doesn't meet the reason given for deleiton? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok.  Request withdrawn Nick Number (talk) 18:27, 21 December 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 2015 San Bernardino attack#Enrique Marquez . Arguments about BLP1E and CRIME appear well founded on policy and do not undermine the GNG/N arguments for keep as relevant information can be added to the article about the crime. Spartaz Humbug! 11:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Marquez (US citizen)[edit]

Enrique Marquez (US citizen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BLPCRIME "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." This is an otherwise-unknown person, not even charged yet, and yet the title of this article describes him as an "accomplice", and the article exists to document this. Nat Gertler (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check your twitter feed, Nat; he's about to be indicted, according to every manor media source in the U.S.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So yes, I'm right, he hasn't been charged yet, much less convicted of being an accomplice. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nat Gertler, true, but he is about to be charged with something. This may be like charging Al Capone with tax evasion, they may only charge marquez with violation of the laws on legal transfer of weapons at this point - but once they charge him with something, he certainly has the notoriety to support an article. BPL is for the protection of otherwise obscure people.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - @E.M.Gregory:, I don't normally work on BLP, but I've just looked up WP:CRIME and its policy is "A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." I find that a reasonable approach. Most of the sources so far are 'people familiar with the situation.' I think we're all familiar with cases of off-the-record briefings from police (this one, say) that turned out to be pure baloney, and I'd rather not see Wikipedia get caught up in amplifying one. So my vote is redirect: merging attributable content into the main article on the attack. Blythwood (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment This article had an under construction tag and had been created only 22 minutes when nominated for AfD. I don't think this is really long enough for the creator to get everything together. I do however agree about concerns with the title seeming to imply he's been found guilty. At worst, redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack#Enrique Marquez and userfy. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack#Enrique Marquez and userfy. This gives almost as much info but doesn't have a pejorative title and at this stage in the investigations we have no idea if this will meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines, or if it is a person of interest who will be exonerated next week. Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources abound on this suspect, whose life has been under a media microscope for weeks now. For example, his sham marriage to a Russian woman who paid him, $5000. to enter a sham marriage so that she could get a green card. [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Title of article under discussion at article talk page. (neighbor)? (suspect)? open to suggestions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marquez has already confessed to being part of a previous terrorism plot; is documented to have violated immigration laws with a sham marriage in which he was paid by a Russian woman to go through a legal marriage in order for her to gain citizenship; and has confessed to making an illegal weapons transfer (guns used by the San Bernardino murderers). Each of these episodes of his law-breaking sourced to in-depth stories in major media:[8] no way this is a BLP of a "relatively unknown, non-public figure."E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now under arrest [[9]].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack#Enrique Marquez - Per @Boleyn:. Parsley Man (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Still not happy about the existence of this article compared to the actual two shooters, but the new arguments for Keep are valid. Parsley Man (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
neutral/keep With the additional prior plans, the green card issue, etc plus WP:PERP on the main incident, I think he pushes into notable. CErtainly that notability is all ultimately derived from the single incident, but thats true of many others like George Zimmerman too.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as new information emerges, his arrest and upcoming trial, we need an article on this person. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack#Enrique Marquez and scrub the word "accomplice" per BLP policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no redirect -- an obvious BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the existing title is inherently problematic, the calls for a "redirect" are probably best handled by having an entry on the Enrique Marquez page (which is a disambiguation page) pointing to the page on the shooting... although even that link has BLP concerns. I don't see much point in inventing another file name just to create a redirect at this point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've moved the page to Enrique_Marquez (US citizen). I realize page moves aren't optimal while an AFD is going on, but come on; you can't disambiguate with "accomplice" when he hasn't even been convicted. Not sure on AFD etiquette; do we move this page too? I'll leave that to others more familiar with AFD. This is not an optimal disambiguation, so further discussion on page title can be had at the article talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Do note that I had posted a request for possible title ideas on the article's talk page minutes after creating the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLP1E does not apply here. In part, because this event is significant and his role in the event is significant. But also because, now that he has come to public attention, his participation: [10] in a Green card marriage is getting significant attention. If you are in the headlines for 2 crimes, it's not only not a BLP1E, it's problematic to merge the whole bio into teh San Bernardino shooting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. --Carnildo (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Frankly, coverage of Marquez and his activities, biography, conversion, radicalization, backing away from radicalization, gun buying, bomb-making, backing away form bomb-making and - just after the attack - phoning 911 to tell them that he had bought the gund, that Farook and Malik were the shooters and that he was really ticked that they used the guns he bought to do this... and more. I don't have the time to add all that should be added. Wash Post article: [11] is a good place to start - for anyone who has time. I do think that it's more important to add this material than it is to argue about whether to keep a separate page or add this (and his green card marriage to the San Bernardino attack page. the 2 arguments for separate pages are a.) that he is accused of a separate event (marriage) crime. and b.) that the reason to split off material like this guy's amazing path to radical Islamism is that the main page becomes unwieldy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack#Enrique Marquez. A marriage of convenience and possible illegal gun buy does not satisfy notability. Even the perps of the attack do not have their own articles. WWGB (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack#Enrique Marquez Reader expectations need to be strongly considered here. Any reader of Wikipedia or any person directed to Wikipedia from a service like Google News would expect this content to be included in the main article as a stand-alone section. A new article seems off topic and makes it appear separate from the original case, but it is reasonable to assume there likely wouldn't have been an investigation of Marquez if San Bernardino had never happened.Crtew (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • snow keep at this point. He's been charged with terrorism support and marriage fraud. While there is overlap with the shooting (he was not directly involved in) there is much more to hos story then that. He is the #2 story in the Canadian news and we can expect many updates as the investigation continues and the charges go forward. The new title is better, though not ideal. Not a suitable redirect now and very strange how a person in the world news being charged with terrorism is seriously discussed as suitable for redirect but pageant winners with fleeting coverage qualify for standalone articles. Wikipedia is messed up. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep?! You're obviously seeing lots of keeps above that I'm not! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The people here voting redirect should show up on the many Beauty Queen AfDs currently open where there is literally nothing to write about and no sources and no impact on the world. This individual is getting extensive in depth coverage even in Canada (top story behind Canadian Forces in ground combat against ISIL) and well beyond his loose connection to the San Bernedino attack - which only happens to be how he came to be noticed by law enforcement. Could someone with an understanding of BLP policy close this as a snow keep please? Smack My Head! Legacypac (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my !vote, but this is certainly not a snow situation. you should reread WP:SNOW Gaijin42 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name change was important to do immediately. But events have now overtaken the initial rationale for this nomination. David in DC (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep events have indeed overtaken the initial rationale for this nomination and the earlier delete/merge !votes. per WP:GNG as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Keep it, we can reassess in six months if coverage is better contained within another article. Unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Mohamed (student) there is another article where this coverage could go, but not sure that's what we want yet.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with you about deferring a final decision. But the interim decision should be to redirect. —teb728 t c 05:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be moved to just Enrique Marquez as he is the only person with an article by this name. Someone else suggested Enrique Marquez Jr but I'm not seeing the Jr in the news and his father is not notable. I've dismantled the inappropriate DAB that title points to. There is one guy with a similar (using a second family name) that could be hatnoted, but seems unnecessary as he is not a big search term. Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack#Enrique Marquez. He "is known only in connection with a criminal event"; so WP:CRIMINAL is exactly on point. Notice that this guideline was followed in the case of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik It would be particularly strange if it were ignored in the case of Marquez, whose alleged involvement in the attack was rather peripheral. —teb728 t c 05:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack. If the two perps themselves don't have articles, an alleged minor party in the crime, who is not independently notable, but notable only in connection with this shooting and its legal aftermath, has no business being a separate article. THere's no reason to delete the material, it just belongs with the rest of it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2015 San Bernardino attack per nom. Restating WP:BLPCRIME: "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured" (emphasis added). He has not been convicted, he's barely been arrested. All that the volume of coverage warrants is the briefest of mentions in the main article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack because one event alone does not sufficiently make an article about that person. epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you actually need to read what BLP1E says...because it no longer applies to Marquez. -- Veggies (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did check, and now I am certain that this guy is only notable because of this one event. The reason is that no one suspected the dude before he was investigated for being a possible accomplice to the attacks. Please tell me if there is another notable event in which he was involved and that I was not aware of. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm perplexed as to how you can read the third criterion ("If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley, Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.") and feel it still applies. Are you arguing that the attacks (deadliest Islamist attack in US since 9/11) are not significant? Because Marquez's role in the attacks and prior involvements in assisting the attackers are quite substantial and are being documented more and more as the story continues unfolding. -- Veggies (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hinkley's been a household name for two generations, and a lot of material has been written about him. Not the case with Marquez. It's an apples-and-oranges comparison on several levels.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Being "a household name" is not the criteria. Read what I quoted. -- Veggies (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find the statements that coverage of the marriage issue take this outside of WP:BLP1E unconvincing. That is something that is known about him, but it's not what he's known for; that coverage all seems to be in the context of "here's something we know about the guy who is supposed to have supplied the guns". If we had articles revealing he went to Bart Simpson High School, would we say that he was "known for" that and that qualifies him going beyong 1E, or is that just giving us a piece of information on this coverage? People being charged with green card marriages are not something that generally generate much of any attention. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Feds disagree, they charged him with immigration fraud: Los Angeles Times: San Bernardino shooter's friend Enrique Marquez accused of fraud in $200-per-month marriage' [12]; ABC News Enrique Marquez, friend of San Bernardino shooter, had sham marriage [13].E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, those headlines prove my point - they're not "local man has green card marriage", they're covering it within the context of the one event of the shooting. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above a certain level of notoriety, WP:BLP1E ceases to apply. I understand that you got your back up, because I started the article a couple of hours before the arrests. But this is routine; note, for example, that Bernie Madoff's article was started the day charges against him were announced. In Marquez's case, we have involvement in three terrorism events, San Bernardono and 2 plots back in 2012/13. I started that aritcle because I fail to see how all of this (plus the Green card marriage can be shoehorned into the San Bernardino article. And, as User:Veggies and several other s point out, this dude is now notorious, way beyond quibbling over BLP -= which in intended only to protect non-notable people from undue publicity.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Law enforcement agencies will charge anyone with anything they can. That doesn't translate into additional notability. Marquez is not independently notable for anything at all, only in connection with 2015 San Bernardino attack and investigation relating to it. If he had a warrant for years of unpaid parking tickets, that would have been enforced against him, too, but would not magically make him independently article-worthy. Several people here are confusing "accused of something, which has been mentioned by sources" with WP:NOTABLE for that particular accusation. Doesn't work that way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The original AfD nominator's criteria has been met. Marquez is now known all over the world, his life has been minutely dissected and examined by reliable media sources, he has been charged in federal court with felony charges, affidavits have been produced as evidence against him into the public record and are now accessible to anyone.... Marquez has definitely met the criteria for a stand-alone article, now. -- Veggies (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trust me, he really isn't "known all over the world". He's not newsworthy here in Britain at all; his arrest and charging were briefly reported and that's it. Just another minor figure possibly involved in terrorism. He doesn't deserve any more than a brief section in the main article on the attack. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, really? [14] "I don't read the news" is not an argument or an analogy for "he isn't known here." -- Veggies (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep now that he has been charged, and is the subject of numerous reliable sources. Jacona (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet Wikipedia biography notability requirements (Subjects notable only for one event)Amineshaker (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack — it's not appropriate for this to stand on its own as an independent BLP until such time as he's convicted of something. Wikipedia has a policy, spelled out at WP:PERP, by which a person who was not already notable for something else does not get over the bar just for being charged with a crime — rather, they remain a WP:BLP1E, not appropriate as the subject of a standalone article, until such time as a court of law finalizes a conviction. As we already know all too well, a not-insignificant portion of Wikipedia's userbase isn't as responsible and conscientious about the sensitivities of a matter like this as many of us lifers are, but instead like to use Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX for drive-by character assassination and presumptions of "guilty until proven innocent" instead of the obverse — and for that reason, this kind of article actually runs the risk of causing a mistrial if we can't absolutely guarantee the utmost level of hypervigilance about its content. So the rule was long ago established that a person does not become notable because of as-yet-untried criminal charges — the appropriate time for a standalone article about him will be if and when a court of law actually comes down with a guilty verdict, and until then it's not appropriate for us to do anything more than briefly mentioning him in the article about the event. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read it differently. PERP states that "the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." I think that applies to this event (deadliest Islamist attack since 9/11). Also, it's worth remembering that we kept another article for a man, not yet convicted of a similar crime. If the stakes for unscrupulous or irresponsible edits is too high, by all means semi-protect the article. But I've never heard of a policy where an article can't be created because it might, through some weird logic, derail a criminal investigation. -- Veggies (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you quote is what WP:PERP says for perpetrators. We cannot at this point treat him as a perpetrator; he has been charged but not convicted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite so. However, there is no prohibition on articles for pre-convicted suspects (cf. Nidal Hasan above). There is only the requirement that editors make serious considerations against creating an article. I feel this event is so historic that it warrants the creation—even prior to a conviction—given the tremendous worldwide coverage it has received. (cf. Jihadi John) -- Veggies (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I could see making that argument for the shooters, perhaps, but for the guy who bought the guns years before? It's hard to see gun supply as a unique and historic event. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The event is the shooting and Marquez is, so far, the only one charged in connection with the event. The criteria makes distinction over newsworthiness or commonality. The newsworthiness has been achieved. -- Veggies (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • He's the only one charged so far because the suspects in the attack itself are currently dead. --Carnildo (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The close on that discussion appears to directly contradict WP:NOTDEM, so I would not give it precedential value. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 07:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what you're referring to. The closing admin notes that the "consensus is clear". -- Veggies (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2015 San Bernardino attack per above. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't help thinking that many of those voting keep here would be voting delete if this chap wasn't in America. There are many terrorist suspects arrested all over the world. Most of them don't have articles. Why is this one so significant? Answer, he isn't, it's just closer to home for many Wikipedia editors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to section of article on the terror attack about this subject. His whole notability is connected to being investigated and charged in connection with that event. All the coverage we need can be included in that article in a section on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see any obvious reason why all the information in this article can't be merged to the San Bernadino attacks article. But, if people start claiming it's too crowded over there to go into full detail, the detail is still highly relevant and abundantly sourced, so the article would have to split back more or less the way it was. With the caveat that it should get a rename, like Accomplices to the 2015 San Bernadino attack (presuming there's more than one on trial by the time people would decide to resplit) to avoid the BLP1E issue. Wnt (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is clearly worthy of inclusion. Curro2 (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment anyone voting delete here that votes keep on a pageant winner should be laughed off Wikipedia. I see people claiming that 1/10,000th the coverage this guy has been receiving is enough to pass GNG. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 25 December 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. Editors recommending deletion argued that 1) There is a lack of biographical information that is normally expected, 2) The cited sources lack substantive prose about the subject, and 3) the player does not appear to meet the general criteria for sports professionals nor the general notability guideline, and that WP:NCRIC is not appropriate. Editors recommending to keep the article remarked that 1) The player fulfills the particular notability criteria for cricket players, 2) that there is no requirement for biographical details to be available on sports professionals, and 3) arguments about WP:NCRIC itself are out of scope here, and need to be settled first at the appropriate venue.

Favoring deletion, there is minimal prose-based coverage about the individual, biographical or otherwise (e.g. about their sports achievements), suggesting that both WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG may not be met here: The prose that is available does not appear to go beyond routine coverage (they are match reports) and the primary sources that verify stats of the match cannot be used to support notability. Favoring keeping the article, there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players. Issues over source reliability and the subject's name were also addressed. The article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by BlackJack's notes in this discussion) and not present in the article at this time. Hence, some early recommendations to delete (or speedily delete) have been reevaluated in that light. The requirement for coverage specific to an individual's work, education, or relationships is not based on any guideline I am aware of. Furthermore, disputes about whether the NCRIC criteria is generally appropriate are wrongly placed here. For these reasons, the outcome of this discussion is keep, and I'd encourage folks to participate in the relevant guideline discussions (here and here) if they haven't already to help guide future decision-making in these sorts of situations.

Finally, there was a slew of disruptive behaviors in this discussion I need to call out because it wastes everyone's time, including my own. If you've made an argument in an AfD, it is disruptive to repeat it over and over. I heard y'all the first time. Second, do not ask people who are likely to agree with you to participate in AfDs. Third, it's disruptive to change the relevant notability criteria outright in a manner consistent with your position during a discussion like this one. (Starting a discussion/RFC about changes? Now there's an idea.) Finally, if you are frustrated with another editor, go their talk page, ANI, or disengage entirely if you can't help but lash out at others while getting your point across. Don't use an AfD page to persist in personal spats. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a living person about which next to nothing is known: we have an initial and a surname, and the fact that he played in a certain cricket match. Previously deleted at AfD here, previous deletion review is here. This article has been re-created with new text and one additional source. In view of the very recent history I feel it's appropriate to discuss this at AfD. —S Marshall T/C 18:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural remark: Sections named First !vote section and Second !vote section were introduced by Pldx1 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First section[edit]

  • Speedy delete: The speedy nomination was declined by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, on the grounds that "the new text adds a significant RS (ESPN page) not mentioned in previous discussion". However, it is clear that in terms of information presented the two sources are virtually identical, and the issues that led to the previous deletion have not been addressed. StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The reason for the earlier deletion was because of insufficient sources in that there were no inline citations and only a vague external link to one online source. As you admit yourself, "the new text adds a significant RS (ESPN page) not mentioned in previous discussion"; the new sourcing therefore addresses the previous issues. In addition, for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with cricket, the article now provides additional background information which was not there before. Please do not try to mislead readers by making out that nothing has changed between the two versions. Jack | talk page 20:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have misunderstood my comment. I admitted no such thing; quite the contrary - I was quoting another editor with whom I disagree. StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Article complies with WP:NCRIC because the subject is a first-class cricketer as verified by inline citations from two reputable sources which are widely used by WP:CRIC. Admittedly, the article is a WP:STUB and additional information is desirable, but with the two reputable sources being in accord with each other, the article can exist as a stub pending enhancement in due course. Steps are currently being taken to investigate local sources if possible. Jack | talk page 20:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep pending continuing discussion - and wait, whether a second source adds further information or not, surely the fact that the two sources match up is sufficient proof of their... truthiness? Rather than send to AfD every single cricketer with a single first-class appearance under his belt, surely it's better to discuss matters like this in an open environment rather than cherry-picking random articles to delete..?
    At the end of the day, a discussion as to whether having a single, simple guideline to follow as to the inclusion of first-class cricketers is appropriate, is not something that a single AfD debate can fix - otherwise we may as well have the same debate in thousands of potential AfD debates based on the same criteria..? Here and now is neither the time nor the place.
    If this further discussion brings up new issues, let's further discuss these articles then and there, but not here and now - this is beyond the scope of a single AfD. Bobo. 04:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is your (first) !vote. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Jack, you will be able to think of examples right off the bat where Cricket Archive and Cricinfo disagree with each other - can you provide an example which proves that one does not directly rely on the other for sources (in the manner of the confused schoolboy copying homework from the second most confused schoolboy in the class)? Bobo. 04:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Hello again, Bobo. The one that springs immediately to mind is W. G. himself. If you compare his bio in the two sites, you will see that CA lists every first-class team he ever played for, while CI lists only six but not the United South of England Eleven (USEE) which is a massive omission in terms of his career. I have come across several lesser known players where the two sites have different statistics and if you check out matchlists, especially from early cricket, you will find differences there too. Jack | talk page 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Jack. Hopefully this is evidence enough that one does not simply copy off another and the two work based on sources provided independent of each other. Bobo. 21:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, it's silly to give any great weight to WP:NCRIC in the case of a dispute. This tiny subsection of WP:NSPORT has been edited by a small number of editors involved with WikiProject Cricket, and few others. The edits have largely been made since WP:NSPORT was promoted to a guideline, so they haven't had much community scrutiny: they've stuck because nobody has reverted them. What we fundamentally have here, as elsewhere in the encyclopaedia, is a bunch of editors with special interests deciding what rules that apply in their own topic area. That is not necessarily a bad thing in itself----interest correlates with knowledge, and it would be foolish to disregard the advice of editors who know what they're talking about----but if that kind of speciality guideline clashes with old and strong rules that enjoy widespread community consensus, then it deserves to be brushed aside. We do not need a community RFC to decide that WP:GNG and WP:BLP outweigh WP:NCRIC.

    However, there is nothing in this article that contravenes WP:BLP, and the general notability guideline is satisfied because there are two editorially independent sources. I think the WP:NCRIC concern is a total red herring and that discussion merits no more editorial time than it has already received.

    My concern in this case is that it's so obviously inappropriate to write a biography about someone about whom we know nothing. We know they're called S. Perera. We don't have a reliable source for their name, their date of birth, their country of origin, or their nationality (except insofar as we can infer it from the fact that they played cricket in Sri Lanka). We can infer that they're probably male. And we can see that they scored eleven runs and took one wicket at a cricket game in 1991. If you can believe that that desperately scant few facts belong in a separate biographical entry in Wikipedia, then I would suggest you may be taking an unusually completist approach to our coverage of cricket.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same Marshall who wrote crappy articles like Catalina Parot and List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs? The latter which is completly unreferenced, failing WP:V and possibly WP:GNG and the former which is the Chilean lawyer equivalent of S. Perera? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think there's something wrong with those articles, feel free to nominate them at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That went right over your head, Marshall. Nevermind. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, while we're being so frank with each other: No, it didn't. I just chose a response that would shut you down, because you know perfectly well why it's appropriate to have an article about a Chilean government minister or the dinosaurs of a particular continent. And you know perfectly well what I'm saying about this one. If you had a mind, you could improve those articles, but you couldn't improve this one, because there's nothing else you could possibly find to say.—S Marshall T/C 21:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, Marshall. Well done! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I voted for Keep at the original deletion debate and, as I've already said at this re-creation's talk page, I'm a little uncomfortable at being here again – but it would be hypocritical of me not to vote this way again. Two things in what User:S Marshall says above seem inconsistent. He says that WP:NCRIC is outweighed by both WP:GNG and WP:BLP, but then goes on to say that "there is nothing in this article that contravenes WP:BLP, and the general notability guideline is satisfied because there are two editorially independent sources". So why is he still wanting to delete? He also says that "it would be foolish to disregard the advice of editors who know what they're talking about": in this case, those editors have decided that the benchmark for notability for cricketers is an appearance in a major match (there are similar benchmarks for other sports, such as baseball and football, I believe), and this cricketer, however little we know about him, passes that criterion.

    He also says that the cricket project is taking an "unusually completist" approach: well, yes, it is and it always has, and some of us are rather proud of that. In my previous vote in the previous deletion discussions, I wrote: "I don't disagree that this is an unsatisfactory article. But WP wants to be an encyclopedia, and a feature of an encyclopedia is comprehensive coverage. WP:CRIC has over many years interpreted this to mean that notable teams playing at the required standard for notability are ipso facto composed of notable players, and this comprehensive rule has the effect of simplifying debate about notability for cricketers. It doesn't mean, at the individual article level, that all articles are adequate, and in some cases like this one they are probably not capable of much improvement; but it does mean that the Cricket Project can claim to have a comprehensive (i.e. encyclopedic) coverage. If you wish to change that, I think you should come up with an alternative ruling that can be applied simply and that you should discuss it at WT:CRIC where the cricket people hang out, because this is a fundamental change to the way one of WP's more active communities has been operating over a long period." I note that WP's own definition of "encyclopedia" makes reference, in its opening paragraph, to comprehensiveness. WP is a long-haul project: I've been here 10 years and the two other "Keep" voters above have been here for a similar amount of time, and we're reasonably close to completing the task of an article for every English cricketer who played in a major match. It may take us another 10 years to complete the Sri Lankan cricketers, but by then I would expect on-line sources to enable us to improve the article on S Perera which is already there in outline form waiting for us. Johnlp (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fundamentally, my position is that to have an article on S. Perera is technically within our rules but falls below our normal community standards.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if you want to put it that way, I "don't like" that we've got a biography of a person whose name we aren't sure of and whose only lifetime accomplishment was to score eleven runs and a wicket in a cricket match in Sri Lanka in 1991.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree that it's not satisfactory. But your response is to delete it, whereas mine is to see it as part of a long-term process and project and capable of improvement. And there, I fear, we shall continue to disagree. Johnlp (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this whole AfD debate appears to be based on the difference between applying WP:ONESOURCE and not. So this article falls below "normal community standards"? Wikipedia itself says there is no such thing as a perfect article. And there never will be. There is no such thing as "normal" and we are working on a single, simple, and easily understood guideline which puts Brian Lara at the same level as S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). Anyone who argues otherwise is flouting WP:NPOV, which states that every article be treated "fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias". Anyone who wishes to argue that the inclusion criteria is too low should be willing and able to suggest their own, based on consistency and NPOV - not their own personal opinion.
    If the debates about the appropriateness of the WP:CRIC inclusion criteria has taught us anything, it's more about the importance of WP:ONESOURCE than people's individual opinions about what makes an article "notable" or not. And it's more important to continue *these* discussions rather than batch-deleting cricketers who have a single FC appearance just for the sake of it. Bobo. 21:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this would be a second !vote: indenting. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removing this recommendation to keep as this was stated by the editor above once already. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete- The only sources in this article are the same ones we saw in the first AfD and the DRV. They are nothing but statistical entries, and one is a bare list of links that doesn't even mention him. There is not even enough material to determine this individual's name, or to definitely distinguish him from other people with similar names. Consensus at the previous AfD and DRV were to delete the article and this re-creation has done nothing - nothing - to address the legitimate reasons for deletion. It's astonishing that this has been permitted. Reyk YO! 21:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. That is absolute rubbish and you know it is. The original article, which was deleted, made no reference at all to ESPNcricinfo (CI) and only mentioned CricketArchive (CA) in an external link, not as an inline citation. This new article has CI as an additional source and both are referenced inline with considerably more information and linkage provided for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with Sri Lankan cricket. CA and CI are independent of each other and both are highly reputable and widely used on this site as well as throughout cricket writing generally. You mention the DRV and I would remind you that its result was no consensus which means we are free to revist the article and attempt to provide an improved version. As for Perera's forename and "other people with similar names", a subject expert from the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (the ACS) has advised me that there were TWO players called S. Perera and, subject to verification, he believes he has the full name of the Old Cambrians player. The ACS is one of the most reputable sources in cricket research circles so if we can soon add that into the article's reflist, the picture will change somewhat dramatically, though frankly two reputable sources are already sufficient to show that the person meets WP:NCRIC. Jack | talk page 22:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And until we this claim is published, your citation is absolutely worthless. That fact is, even if we say that CA and CI are independent sources, they are still not providing significant coverage, and so the subject still fails WP:GNG. And passing WP:NCRIC doesn't make up for that. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. An article must meet either GNG or NCRIC, not both, though both is obviously to be preferred. Jack | talk page 08:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No - NCRIC is part of WP:NSPORT, which says "The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." In other words, the only reason NCRIC exists is to help us determine whether GNG is fulfilled. StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The *only sources*? Statistical entries? What kind of information would you rather? POV biographies copied from source to source to source with no respect for truth? By that metric, surely 95 percent of sources on articles from even high-profile subjects are non-permissible? Bobo. 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course other stuff exists. That's why everything within a single notability guideline is at *exactly* the same level. Because other stuff exists. Otherwise we would have just one article on every single subject. And the mere concept of that is simply ludicrous. Bobo. 08:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NE Ent 22:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to point out, the nomination points out no criteria for which the article would be permissible to delete, and in fact gives more reasons to *keep* it than delete it... Bobo. 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The nominator also confirms that the article "has been re-created with new text and one additional source" which means that the statement by User:Reyk is misleading and should be ignored. Jack | talk page 22:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why ping. The reason for deletion- that there is just not enough biographical information to write an article- has not in any way been addressed by these new "sources". One of them doesn't even mention this player, and all of them are just raw database entries on two sites whose business is to collect all such statistics. Drip-feeding almost empty sources to cynically get around the wording of CSDG4 is just gamesmanship. Reyk YO! 23:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you out of courtesy because you have a right to answer my criticism of you for making misleading statements. You have replied by further misrepresentation when you say one of the citations does not mention the player. Ever heard of "context"? The purpose of that citation is to confirm that Perera's team was first-class, so I have made a relevant statement within the article and provided a citation to verify it. Jack | talk page 12:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a prime example of abuse of subject-specific notability guidelines. Playing for a team that was briefly of the right level, does not make notability. Neither does inclusion in some directories. There are no substantive sources about this player, fine gentleman though I'm sure he be. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briefly at the right level? The important thing is that he was at the right level. "Briefly" doesn't come into it as per NPOV. Bobo. 23:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every guideline is a subject-specific notability guideline, because every article relates to a specific subject. Bobo. 00:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Article complies with WP:NCRIC, a community agreed guideline. Once again we have people attempting to undermine community consensus. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not agree with WP:NCRIC, since it fails WP:GNG. WP:NCRIC explicitly says that articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. All the first-class appearance says that the article probably meets WP:GNG, but there is no evidence to suggest that is actually does. And it fails WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage - there are only bare statistics mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are twisting things and misrepresenting the facts. NOWHERE does NCRIC say that "articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". The only mention of GNG in NCRIC relates to under-19 players who do not meet NCRIC but might nevertheless meet GNG in non-cricket terms. Jack | talk page 08:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant" is as subjective a word as "notable". Everything which is written down in any form of medium will have some form of writer bias based on availability of information. What makes one source more "significant" to one person may not make a source "significant" to another. That is why we have subject-specific guidelines to guide us to a single, simple, notability criterion - so that these debates can take place there rather than here. Bobo. 09:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually NCRIC clearly says it in the FAQ "No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions.". Bear in mind that although NCRIC redirects to a specific section of the sports notability guideline, it cannot be read in complete isolation from the general page. The general page clearly says that all article have to meet the GNG (as should all subject specific guidelines) and so does GNG itself. If you believe that subject specific guidelines remove the requirement that articles meet the GNG you're mistaken. As NCRIC explains, as does GNG, the subject specific guidelines are there to make things simpler when it's likely something is notable, but the sources required to meet GNG haven't been found yet. Just to be clear, they explicitly do not remove the requirement that the article is eventually able to meet the GNG.

As to how this affects this AFD, if significant effort had been put in to finding the sources needed to meet GNG and they have not been found, this would strongly point towards a delete. If there was little effort, then it seems to suggest a keep. However the fact that this has already been deleted once, and the new sources don't seem to give any indication of meeting the GNG would seem to point toward delete. If it was felt the original deletion was improper, that should have been handled with an AFD review.

If people believe they are about to find the sources which would either meet GNG or at least give fairly strong evidence it could be met, then that's great, but I don't understand why they didn't wait until they found these sources before recreating the article.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCRIC is part of NSPORT - see above. And so it "provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it seems that have not been any policy-based arguments offered for keeping the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no policy-based arguments to support deletion. You and your convenient sidekick have repeatedly tried to twist and misrepresent guidelines. Not only that, you are even contradicting the nominator. Jack | talk page 08:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who my "convenient sidekick" is. And of course, "contradicting the nominator" is a terrible argument, worthy of inclusion in WP:AADD. StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now based on GNG. There is need for a proper discussion about the NCRIC guidelines (perhaps at WT:NSPORT or WT:SPORTS or WT:N), else we will have an endless cycle of AFD - delete - recreate. There seem to be hundreds of articles with a situation similar to S. Perera (one or two matches, full name and date of birth unknown). Hence I believe a discussion at the right place can help us decide whether all these articles should be kept or not. Fenopy (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope this doesn't seem overly defensive but I think it's appropriate to have the discussion before making decisions based on said discussion. Bobo. 01:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep If the available sources don't even give a full name for someone active in the 1990s, the person is not notable. Argyriou (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since sufficient information has been provided to show that the individual is notable(ish), I switch my !vote to keep. Argyriou (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You mean 1991, which is 1.5 years before CricInfo existed, and 7 years before Google existed. The whole point of NCRIC/CRIN is that NOT EVERYTHING IS ONLINE and most of us don't do much more than a google search to see if someone's notable. Early 1990s Sri Lankan First Class cricket (they were only awarded First Class status a few years earlier) is probably one of the most obscure corners of games that meet NCRIC. The intention of NCRIC is that lets not argue about individual players who meet the standard, lets assume that there will be sources somewhere. And until someone has read the local Colombo press from that era, how can anyone be sure? Of course, the BLP and V requirements don't allow for contentious information to be unreferenced, and plenty of people think that GNG demands that significant coverage be added now, not later. So we are at this impasse. And, as far as I'm aware, only the recreator of this article has actually tried to contact someone in Sri Lanka to see if there are any more sources (see the thread at WT:CRICKET). The-Pope (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, and the investigation has already exploded one of the myths put forward by certain people that this Perera is the same person as another one known to the two websites as a player at a different club. I am waiting for my contact to come back from holiday today. It is possible, if not probable, that the player's full name will be confirmed and other data may be reported too. It is all too easy for the likes of Anselm and Reyk to try and dismiss something because they don't like it. I fail to see how their attitude helps the readers and it certainly doesn't help those editors who are trying to build subject coverage. Surely it is obvious to anyone that not all data is immediately available and that often you have to use what you can and be patient for more. Why don't they propose the abolition of all stubs? Jack | talk page 07:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism only works if it's actually *pro* the individual in question! We are working entirely on the information available to us. That according to the guidelines of not just cricket but every other competitive team sport, this individual is notable. Bobo. 08:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It would interest me if every person who voted delete on a/any cricket-based topic which meets notability guidelines would suggest some new notability guidelines which are consistent, can be applied to any situation, and are relevant in an encyclopedia which tries, but is now attempting to fail, to cover every single notable aspect of an incredibly notable subject. And that's nothing to do with the efforts of those who are contributing to it, and everything to do with those who are attempting to destroy that notion. Is a Sri Lankan cricketer with just one first-class appearance notable to a different extent to an English cricketer with same, if the only difference we have to go by is that we *might* have the date of birth of the latter? If all this is about simply having a date of birth available, then that's rather sad - and contravenes the very point of NPOV. Bobo. 08:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer please note that this article's defenders are canvassing for keep votes: [15]. Reyk YO! 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if this seemed like canvassing. I was purely being courteous to a friend for considering an aspect that I hadn't considered - if you read what was written in his comment, it appears he simply put it in the wrong place and it looks more as though he intended to leave it here. Bobo. 09:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of being courteous... [16] are you sure that this is the right way to go about defending a decision - and then cowering for forgiveness? Bobo. 10:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cowering for forgiveness" my arse. I was asked to dial down the swearing and I politely agreed to a reasonable request. It's the last time I will, because obviously making a concession out of politeness leads to opportunistic point scorers such as yourself gloating and crowing about it. I just haven't got the time or patience to indulge your brand of mendacious fuckwittery. Reyk YO! 10:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No politicians' answers please, a "yes" or "no" will do fine - since you haven't actually answered my question. Bobo. 10:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm really not going to take the bait. Nice try. Go pester someone else. Reyk YO! 10:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the comment in question certainly wasn't intended to be left here - it was made before this page was created. StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the comments of Jack and Johnlp. Meets the notability guidance that has been standard for sportspeople on WP. Obviously that's subject specific, because that's the consensus reached by that project to demonstrate notbilty. That's how WP works and is the same for all projects, from sportspeople, remote villages, speices of insects, etc, etc. The nominator has a perverse and quite questionable rationale of that it should be deleted as the cricket project is targeting a complete set of entries! <redacted>. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lugnuts, I'd be grateful if you'd kindly stop the unprovoked personal attacks on me now, please and thank you.—S Marshall T/C
  • Keep for the reasons given by Johnlp. However I regret the aspersions cast by one or two on the Keep side of the arguments against those who in good faith hold a different view. JH (talk page) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May be this Old Cambrian doesn't fulfill the notoriety criterions for a dinosaurus. But it seems that we are speaking about a cricketer... and thus have to apply the cricketer's criterions. Moreover, it doesn't seem that "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery" are established cricket technical expressions. Pldx1 (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would love to hear them in Henry Blofeld's voice though, wouldn't you? Bobo. 10:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:N makes it clear that meeting a subject-specific guideline (WP:NCRIC) does not guarantee that a topic will be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. This article is a stub and the fact that basic personal information such as full name cannot be sourced suggests that it will be WP:PERMASTUB. Therefore we have to consider if it would be better merged into a larger article, such as List Old Cambrians cricketers or 1991 Saravanamuttu Trophy, or redirected there. Much of the content is not subject specific, e.g. "This was played at the Tyronne Fernando Stadium in Moratuwa from 1 to 3 November 1991. Old Cambrians' opponents were the Antonians Sports Club, who won the match by 8 wickets". The remaining content can be included in other articles.--obi2canibetalk contr 12:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. WP:N says nothing of the sort. WP:N actually says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (including WP:ATHLETE). WP:ATHLETE states in bold: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below (including WP:NCRIC). Please do not misinterpret and thereby misrepresent what thes guidelines actually do say. The criteria clearly state that NCRIC alone is sufficient: it is GNG OR SSC. Jack | talk page 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please note the words The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No, that is incorrect. You are misinterpreting both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE and it is no good for you to go around calling people liars just for disagreeing with you. A rebuttable presumption is not a guarantee, and WP:ATHLETE very clearly states "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." This could not be any clearer. WP:NCRIC does not trump the notability guideline- it defers to WP:N. At most, it helps editors decide when it is likely that sources exist- but it is still necessary that they actually do exist. At this point, after two AfDs and a DRV, there is still no substantial sourcing so it is now clear that the "rebuttable presumption of notability" has definitively been rebutted. In fact, if WP:NCRIC encourages the production of many contentless microstubs like this one, then WP:NCRIC is inadequate and should be repealed or tightened. Reyk YO! 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackJack: Why do you accuse another editor of lying when the lede of WP:N states in black and white: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article"?--obi2canibetalk contr 16:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I would also be happy with a redirect in the short term in order to preserve the article text whilst either further research continues or a wider review, taking opinions from throughout the project, of the notability guidelines for cricketers (and possibly the other sports specific criteria) takes place. My reasoning for delete is that NCRIC is being interpreted in a simplistic boolean fashion when, in cases such as this, I feel the lack of verifiability is a major factor which must be taken into consideration. WP:SPORTCRIT, the direct parent of WP:NCRIC is no where close to being met. The fact that NCRIC differs so markedly from SPORTCRIT (which mirrors the GNG so much better) as well as the simplistic boolean approach is my reasoning for thinking that there needs to be a review of NCRIC. In this specific case we essentially have a scorebook entry. This has, at some point, found it's way onto a database, possibly via a book, and then that database has found its way to CA and CI. All very well and good, and if I want a score book style entry I'll go there. Without any form of additional information to verify the identity of the individual concerned I feel that the verifiability of the article is in too much doubt for us to include within this project. This doesn't mean that other cricketers with just one first class, List A or T20 appearance will necessarily fall into the same category, just as it doesn't mean that a cricketer without an appearance in any of those types of games is necessarily non-notable and should be precluded from inclusion.
I would also note that the approach being taken to the recreation of this article a very short time after the DRV is an issue of concern. I thought long and hard before contributing to this AfD, partly as a result of that and partly because I wanted to read extensively some of the related comments. I've no doubt that there are wider issues in play here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I am the main author of WP:CRIN from which NCRIC is derived, I'm always happy to review its criteria and guidelines. This controversy goes a lot deeper than NCRIC, though. It is clear that there is considerable disagreement about the interpretation of WP:N, GNG and SSC. How do we resolve that? Whatever you may say about priorities, the fact is that both WP:N and ATHLETE actually say the article must satisfy either GNG or SSC, not both and not one at the expense of the other. Suggestions? Jack | talk page 14:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there is a general issue around the specific sport criteria at least. Possibly in other areas. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when you say that "a cricketer without an appearance in any of those types of games is necessarily non-notable", it does say in NCRIC that under-19 players and, by inference, other players from minor competitions, may be adjudged notable by reference to the wider GNG. We use an appearance in a major match as a benchmark for notability; anyone else has to meet GNG as they would fail NCRIC. Jack | talk page 14:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In practice however it seems commonplace to use NCRIC in a Boolean fashion when it comes to other players. Certainly there are two cases currently included in a bulk AfD that I tend to think pass the GNG but where it is being argued that they should be deleted simply because they don't have a FC, LA or T20 appearance. In my view a less simplistic Boolean approach would be a helpful starting point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just so I understand you, which AfD do you mean and which players do you think meet GNG? I personally would not argue the NCRIC only line if they meet GNG. Jack | talk page 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are arguments that can be made at WP:Articles for deletion/Nosaina Pokana Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I respect your views there but I don't agree because Healy's press coverage is attributable to the fame of his father and similar players without famous fathers do not attract that level of coverage. This would mean that you are, in effect, using a Boolean approach yourself re GNG's insistence on multiple sources. In this case, NCRIC is a better judge because the player has not taken part in a major match (yet). Jack | talk page 09:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems that we have reached a consensus that the article (as it currently stands) fails GNG. What we disagree about is whether that means it should be deleted or not. StAnselm (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if this is the case, it is hard to see why the previous consensus to delete should be ignored (or overturned). StAnselm (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because 'outnumbered' is 'inconclusive' when the grand total number is six? Pldx1 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, (a) that's a lot more !votes than often occurs at deletion discussions, and (b) we don't actually count votes, but weigh arguments. StAnselm (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't count the votes, a closing describing not 3/3 as outnumbered is invalid. Pldx1 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The emphasis was certainly on the arguments; the exact words were "the "keep" opinions are unpersuasive as well as outnumbered". In any case, it is widely conceded that the discussion did tend towards "delete". StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The closer of the DRV who decided its alleged consensus is the nominator in this AfD. DRVs are supposed to be closed by an independent admin assessing the policy-based arguments rather than by taking one side. This AfD nomination to delete the new article in which some concerns from the DRV are addressed suggests (at least to me) that the independence and objectivity of the DRV close is not assured. Just like the original AfD was closed by an admin who shifted position when his failure to consider NCRIC was pointed out, so has the DRV closer who kept that article deleted now shifted ground even with independent sources are provided. EdChem (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, hang on, that's not fair at all. I closed the deletion review in good faith and without forming a preconceived opinion. I regularly visit the deletion review page and I know what my closes say, so I naturally noticed when the S. Perera link in my own close went blue. That made me think, "Hello, this material was deleted for cause. Who's re-created it again?" Then I looked, and checked the new source, and I thought, "I don't know if that source is enough to overcome the previous consensus for deletion". So I started another AfD. Then I saw that this discussion was going differently from the previous ones. That's when I started seriously thinking about the issue, and I posted a long and nuanced post here which fully acknowledged that this article is a different article from the one that was deleted, and fully acknowledged that it has another source, but I still felt it was below the community's standards. Then Lugnuts started his ad homming, which didn't exactly fill me with seasonal cheer. That's when I started arguing more forcefully that this material needs to go.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original AfD was closed with the closer not taking note of the guideline. When this was pointed out, he shifted ground and refused to revise his close. No consensus at an AfD leads to keep, but your no consensus rather than relist close defaults to delete - the outcome you are now advocating. I can't know your thoughts or motivations which is why I wrote that circumstances suggest to me that independence is not assured. Is it unfair that I have doubts? Maybe, but admins acting on their preferences rather than as independent assessors of consensus is sadly not unknown. Also, the AfD closure whose decision you endorsed (in effect) has certainly shown a willingness to act unilaterally and to refuse to consider the possibility of error, which might (unfairly) influence my suspicions here. I saw the DRV close as being cited as widely endorsing the deletion, a characterization I found difficult to swallow, and I noted that questions can be raised. There are certainly issues with articles like this, but for me, deleting articles rather than holding a discussion on NCRIC is the wrong approach. Recreating the article can also be taken as provocative, I agree, but taking the bait by AfDing just sets up another fight over a specific case instead of fostering a discussion of the general issue. EdChem (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen people go down that route before with overly permissive guidelines; with WP:PORNBIO, I'm particularly thinking of. It's extremely time-consuming to argue with a wikiproject's favourite guideline and I'm just not that invested in it. For me, the concern is about this specific case in which the community standards and expectations for articles are being subverted. Does the community really want to allow creation of a biography of a living person who we can't even unambiguously name? If that's within the rules then we're following a rule off a cliff.—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't deny that the PORNBIO thing was a mess. As I said in the DRV, there are likely print sources in Sri Lanka, just not much online. Also, undermining a guideline by trying to pick off articles one by one is hardly less time-consuming a way to pick a fight. EdChem (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons I argued to delete this two weeks ago. Taking a couple of steps back, the whole premise that anybody who ever played in a professional sports league is worthy of an encyclopedia article is just plain silly. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the joys of WP is that there are lots of different people with different skills and differing priorities who come together to create an encyclopedia which is, in its own definition, "a reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information". The Cricket Project has over a long period taken the view that the word "comprehensive" is important in this, whereas you seem to suggest that that view is "silly". You're entitled to your view, but why do you want to impose that on everyone? And would you apply your view to, say, Hillebrand (baseball) which is, I'm sure, justifiable as an article in terms of completing the set of major baseball players? Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Roy, if that's true, please take that up with WP:NSPORTS, for which the same is true of almost every competitive team sport. Bobo. 17:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was on the fence about this one, but following the research and expansion by Jack I think subject now meets the general notability guideline, regardless of NCRIC. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the expansion - see below. StAnselm (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The key point is that guidelines should not be treated as binary, but should be treated as a way of thinking. I think the page does no harm, but it does no good either. A simple mention in a scorecard, which is basically all there is, is insufficient for an article. It is fine for the cricket project to aim for comprehensive coverage, but that does not mean that there needs to be an article for any cricketer who played in a first class games ever. WP:NCRIC is fine as a guideline, but I give more weight to WP:GNG. There has been no in-depth coverage of this person, and a few trivial mentions do not suffice to counter this, in my view. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The below proposed amendment to WP:ATHLETE caused confusion on where to place the iVotes. I deleted my first posting and moved DGG's iVote to be in chronological order. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC) -- Jreferee (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is your (first) !vote. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your move. Pldx1 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed amendment to WP:ATHLETE[edit]

  • Would everyone interested in this case please refer to this proposal. It is clear that the problem we have with Perera and similar cases is that the guidelines are causing confusion. As things stand, we have no firm basis for a discussion. I daresay most of these guidelines need to be reviewed and revised but there is a clear contradiction in the opening paragraph of WP:ATHLETE. Jack | talk page 10:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Can I suggest that the FAQ at the top of that page is well worth a look. It really helps to place the sports specific notability guidelines in context and, in my view, suggests that they need to be used alongside the GNG etc... Have a read - all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two external discussions taking place: here and here. I suggest that the decision on Perera rests with the outcomes there which will address the issue of whether SNG on its own is sufficient or whether GNG is essential regardless of SNG. Perera certainly meets SNG (i.e., NCRIC in this instance) but whether he meets GNG too is questionable, unless additional sources can be confirmed (still waiting for the possible ACS input). Jack | talk page 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the amendment to Wikipedia:Notability (sports), but I don't think this discussion relies on it passing or failing. As was pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Notability, "there are occasions where our presumption is wrong... but those are actually extremely rare, and can be dealt with on a case by case basis". This would seem to be one of those extremely rare cases. And with this edit this becomes the deletion discussion to which I have made the most contributions ever. StAnselm (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third source confirmed[edit]

  • Please note that the article has been amended as information has been received from a third source. It remains possible that further verification may be forthcoming from a Sri Lankan newspaper (a primary source) but we shall have to wait and see for that. The additional information includes the player's name, date of birth and his bowling action. Curiously, it does not confirm if he batted righthanded or lefthanded, although we now know he bowled righthanded. The big surprise, to me anyway, is that he is after all "two players": he played for Old Cambrians in 1991 and then reappeared for Kurunegala in 1999 so, like the two online sources, we originally had two articles for the same player (this has happened before because the online sources rely almost entirely on scorecard data).
One point I should make is that the title should be changed to Suresh Perera (cricketer, born 1970 as there is another Suresh Perera, who played in Tests for Sri Lanka, but I will not move it while there is an AfD ongoing.
Could all contributors please look at the revised article and amend their entries as appropriate given that we now have this extra info? Thanks. Jack | talk page 17:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where have the ACS published this information? While it is brilliant that we have it, at the moment it simply appears to be WP:OR, albeit by a member of the ACS on our behalf. WP:V says that sources have to be "reliable, third-party, [and] published". The Sri Lankan newspaper would appear, to my mind, the better source, if we can get the details. Harrias talk 17:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is good news. Pleasingly too, the somewhat analogous baseball player I alluded to above (Hillebrand (baseball)) has had his article somewhat tweaked by one of the participants in this discussion after being around for some years in a fairly unsatisfactory state. Johnlp (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what is the publication? The article suggests that there is a 2015 publication called Sri Lankan cricketers. Is that correct? StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have removed the addition as currently failing WP:V and therefore violating WP:BLP. This needs to be verifiable (which, of course, is not the same as verified). It needs to be in some sort of published form. Of course, it also raises the question of where our friend at ACS got the information, and whether we are able to access that as well. Of course, we don't have to access it, we only have to know where it is. StAnselm (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nothing is truly verifiable unless we were there as a witness at the time, and if we were, doesn't that contravene WP:PRIMARY? Bobo. 17:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we simply need it published in a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - now that we have verified this cricketer's first name, does this invalidate the original, only, and very flimsy, reason for deletion, that being that the individual's first name isn't available? And @BlackJack:, just to be persnickety, you missed a parenthesis from the player's WP link: Suresh Perera (cricketer, born 1970). Bobo. 17:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we haven't verified it yet... StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - so new info becomes available which provides more information on this cricketer, but StAnselm (in favour of deletion) reverts the additional information. Am I the only one who considers this done in bad faith, simply because the new information weakens their stance? I've reverted as the user has a vested interest. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do no re-add BLP violations. Consider this your warning. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Consider this your warning." Perhaps you ought to lower your tone StAnselm, it's highly condescending. And perhaps you ought to leave reverting such things to other users, who aren't trying to influence an AfD outcome. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From [[17]], it seems that User:StAnselm is a simple user, as anyone else. Pldx1 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, StAnselm is bang out of order. Screaming about BLP violations instead of waiting for me to answer the very reasonable question posed by Harrias above. StAnselm has both a caution and a final warning on his own talk page about BLP which appear to have had no effect on his arrogant attitude. He may be a "simple user" but he most certainly is condescending and his approach to this article is entirely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and his desire to make a WP:POINT about it. He should apologise to Bobo192 and AssociateAffiliate among others.
Right, Harrias, thank you for your question which is very pertinent because it has led me to query what the ACS have published. To cut a long story short, I understand they issued a guide to Sri Lankan cricketers several years ago (about 2005, apparently) in one of their limited edition handbooks. My contact does not have this issue as he was not a member when it was published but he is working on an up-to-date draft with the intention of having that published by the ACS in the near future. As Perera is a 20th century player, it is believed the details given were in the published guide and they will certainly form part of the new guide. As you say, however, the guide must be published not under review.
The good news is that the lady in Colombo visited the newspaper archive yesterday and has verified the information from the paper's two match reports. The second match report confirms that the Suresh Perera involved is the "former Old Cambrians player" and so, given that Old Cambrians did not have another player with the name, it is the same man in both matches despite a seven-year gap. He was a last minute replacement in the Kurunegala team due to another player being injured. The first match report mentions him as a debutant and confirms the ACS information plus the additional facts that he was "local" (i.e., to Moratuwa) and he was a student (we don't know what his job was seven years later). Sadly, we still don't know if he was RHB or LHB but that is unimportant given that he was recognised as primarily an off spinner.
I'm rather short of time at present, which is why I haven't replied to Harrias before now (StAnselm, please note, some of us are busy in reality), and I need to work out how to cite a newspaper report because I haven't done it before so please bear with me.
I suggest that StAnselm does something about his unacceptable attitude and he can start by replacing the valid information he has removed. His action breaches BLP because he is denying the player's known name. What he should have done, of course, is place an appropriate tag on the article requesting verification or refimprove. But, no, he has to make his WP:POINT and start screaming hypocritically about BLP. His attitude in reverting my inputs effectively accuses me, an editor with ten years experience, of bad faith. I am quite happy to have a tag placed on an article because that is simply asking a reasonable question, as Harrias has done here, but a wholesale revert before the question has been seen, let alone answered, is reprehensible and, as I say, bang out of order. Jack | talk page 08:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A further point to illustrate StAnselm's unacceptable behaviour. Thank you to Blue Square Thing for directing me to this. In the FAQ at the top of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), Q4 reads: "What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?" The answer says: "There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given". This case is about a Sri Lankan domestic cricketer active twenty years ago and, after considerable effort, the key sources about him are found in a Sinhalese language newspaper. Yet StAnselm insists on immediate deletion and anything which is known but is pending verification violates BLP. Are his actions those of a responsible editor acting in WP:AGF? Jack | talk page 09:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, you can't place two templates on someone's talk page simultaneously and expect that to count as two separate warnings. Similarly, you can't play tit-for-tat revenge games with templates and expect anyone to regard them as legitimate. Anyway, we have found out in this discussion that CricInfo and CricketArchive are not reliably accurate, at least regarding obscure just-barely-first-class players, since both sites seem to have got both his career span and identity wrong. I am not inclined to trust the reported bowling and batting figures either now. If StAnselm was worried about possible BLP problems, then it turns out he was completely justified. Reyk YO! 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither can you behave in such a childish way that a senior admin feels compelled to call you to order. It is true that CI and CA appear to be mistaken on this occasion because they relied only on scorecard data and in their bio pages have not tied up the connection between the two matches. No one is perfect. Data about 20th century Sri Lankan cricket is not easy to come by, as this case has demonstrated. Having said that, by pointing out that the two websites are wrong, you obviously accept that the ACS and the newspaper are right and that your previous argument about insufficent sources is invalid. So, thanks for that. Jack | talk page 10:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about you don't put words in my mouth? I haven't commented on your new sources because I haven't seen them. Instead, I relied on your admission that CI and CA were wrong. How many other obscure first class cricket players' articles are sourced predominantly to bare statistical entries on those sites? How many of these also suffer from glaring errors of fact like this one? Should the community re-evaluate whether these two sites have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Reyk YO! 10:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackJack:, I think you completely misunderstand WP:BLP policy. Perhaps you are operating with an old version in mind, from when you first joined the project. The current version says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis original). When this (allegedly) conflicts with a notability guideline, obviously the BLP policy takes precedence. It is ridiculous to suggest that removing the material also constitutes a BLP violation - articles do not need to contain everything about the subject that is thought to be true, but they should not contain anything that is unverifiable. Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please. StAnselm (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated using information I have received via an ACS contact from a Sinhalese language newspaper based in Colombo, two match reports having been cited. I am making no further comment on this AfD. Jack | talk page 13:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this extra source material has been added, once again I ask, does this not completely invalidate the original reason for deletion, and therefore this article need be reappraised based on this data? Bobo. 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the external links, one to CA and one to CI. This is looking like an article which needs to be completely reappraised based on the information which has come to light since the start of the AfD, as every single reason behind the original deletion rationale has been addressed. What should we do? @BlackJack: @StAnselm:? Bobo. 14:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, are you saying that the subject now meets the GNG, in your opinion? StAnselm (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me? I had no doubt that it met GNG in the first place. As for right now? Significant coverage, yes. Notable sources, plural, now that a second external link has been added, yes. Independent of the subject? Yes. Two independent websites, and two independent, non-online sources. Bobo. 16:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the irony regarding "verifiability" is the following. Nothing is technically verifiable by anyone unless we were there at the time. And if we were basing an article's information from being there at the time, this contravenes WP:PRIMARY. This being the case, there should technically be *no* articles on Wikipedia as these two guidelines completely contradict each other. Bobo. 14:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what verifiability is at all. StAnselm (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second section[edit]

  • Keep - Meets the SNG for cricketers... That's really the key thing here. I frequently go IAR with respect to the SNG for PORNBIO, as mentioned by S. Marshall above. There is a fundamental difference between a sourced, statistically-based stub about an athlete and a poorly sourced or largely unsourced BLP about a pseudonymous porn actor, however. The greater good of the encyclopedia calls for the retention of the former and the deletion of the latter, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we actually need now is the help of a Sinhalese-speaking editor who can find the article in the newspaper archives and confirm it for us. I've posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka asking if anyone can help out. I think a relisting at AfD would be helpful at this point, since we've already used a lot of the allotted time, so if any uninvolved sysops are passing then I'd be grateful if they could consider that.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure that the player in the 1999 f-c match is the same one who played in 1991. CricketArchive doesn't seem to think so, having two separate player entries. In the 1991 match, he seems to have been primarily a bowler, batting well down the order. In the 1999 match, he seems to be primarily a batsman, not even bowling in the opposition first innings. Of course in over seven years his bowling could have declined and his batting improved - that has happened to many cricketers - but Perera is such a common name in Sri Lanka that unless the Sri Lankan source is clear that they are the same person I'm unconvinced. It wouldn't change my vote, though, as even befiore the second match was unearthed I voted Keep. JH (talk page) 20:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a cricketer directory. It's desperately trying to show notability, having details of the few, regular games he's played in which would typically not be included in more developed sports biographies. "This was played at the Tyronne Fernando Stadium from 1 to 3 November 1991. Old Cambrians' opponents were the Antonians Sports Club, who won the match by 8 wickets.", "The match was drawn.", good for him, keep this on Cricket Archive/Cricinfo type sites. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly an SNG cannot prevail if the article manifestly fails GNG. Short statty type records are no sufficient for a BIO. We don't even know what the S stands for. All these NCRIC based votes should be discarded. Spartaz Humbug! 10:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spartaz I assume you didn't read the article, as we do know what the S stands for, and it is on the first line of the article. In bold. Harrias talk 10:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And this is one of the details that is so borderline verifiable. Does the newspaper in question identify his first name? I'm not sure, and all we have is a second- or third- (or fourth-) hand account of what the newspaper said. StAnselm (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I closed the previous AfD, which was contested, so instead of closing I'll comment in my capacity as an editor: if all we know about a sportsperson is statistics from match reports, as is the case here, then we simply do not have enough material for a biography. What we have is a line in a table of sports statistics, and that's the level of coverage appropriate here. In policy terms, fails WP:GNG for clear lack of substantial, reliable third-party coverage. The topic-specific notability guideline creates merely a presumption of notability; if thorough searches (as in this case) find nothing more of substance, then there is no basis for an article.  Sandstein  18:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandstein Have you revisited the article since last time? There is now more than just a line in a table of sports statistics, given the local newspaper reports. It's still not much more, granted, but it is more. Harrias talk 10:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. good sources, had a career a short one but that is not a issue.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG: There are sources, but not sufficient sources to pass GNG. The match reports are trivial mentions- if you want to say something about a cricket team(notable), those who play are usually mentioned. But notability is not inherited. The cricket sites mentions are trivial, too- despite giving some information. These are large databases with standard information about lots of cricket players. It is just one player, and there is not a lot of information...Neither being one of many in a statistics database nor being mentioned in passing as one of the players who played in a match one or two times makes you notable.--Müdigkeit (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A biography is a detailed description of a person's life that portrays a subject's experience of these life events. Basic facts like education, work, and relationships also are a part of the detailed description of a biography. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, adds a requirement that the event descriptions need to be based on reliable sources. Here, there is not enough reliable source material from which to write an article on the topic. Even without the Verifiability requirement, there is not enough source material from which to write an article on the topic. There is no source material from which to obtain a detailed description, and there are no life event or S. Perera's experiences of these life events. There's not even enough source material from which to obtain basic facts like education, work, and relationships of S. Perera. WP:GNG is clear in its requirements and, in this case, there is no multiple coverage sources that address the topic directly and in detail, even considering the recent update using information "received via an ACS contact from a Sinhalese language newspaper" noted above. Due to the lack of sufficient source material, the prior text reviewed during AfD1 and the present text is not capable of improvement to the level of being a Wikipedia article. As such, the page should be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this would be a second !vote: indenting. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC). Thanks for your move.Pldx1 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above proposed amendment to WP:ATHLETE caused confusion on where to place the iVotes. I deleted my first posting and moved DGG's iVote to be in chronological order. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, merely because a person is notable to be included within the pages of Wikipedia does not mean that there is enough source material to justify a stand alone article on the topic. The standalone article will never be detailed or complete simply because there presently does not exist enough source material to justify a stand alone article on the topic. The information on S. Perera can be included within the pages of Wikipedia, just not in a standalone article. See GNG. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is established practice that reliably documented sportspeople who meet the requirements in the special notability guideline are notable, even if nothing much is known about the details of their life. Verifiability requires that the significant facts be verified, and they are. There is no requirement un Wikipedia for any article, biographical or otherwise to be detailed or complete, or that we reject articles because of the lack of knowledge of some of the routine biographical facts. Sportspeople are notable because of their sporting accomplishments, not because of where they were born or educated. Similarly in other fields.
Personally, I think our inclusion criteria for many sports are a considerably too low in some respects, and would like to see them increased. But I do not mistake my wishes for what our guidelines ought to be, for the actual accepted guidelines. And if I wanted to change them I would go the route of an RfC, not a particular AfD. I don't do that because 1/ it is not a high priority for me, and 2/I think the consensus does agree with our relative unrestrictive guidelines in this field,and when something is that well established and harmless, it's not a good idea to change it. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the persuasive comments made by Johnlp --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the argument put by DGG. This AfD is not the place to decide about whether there is a problem with a guideline, nor a place to remove an article because it seems unlikely to go past the stub stage. If his first class career is too short, where is the line to be drawn without starting dozens of new AfDs on edge cases? If his sources are offline and not in English, so what? As for the argument "fails WP:GNG for clear lack of substantial, reliable third-party coverage", this depends entirely on the word "substantial". Just about anything can be defended as not substantial enough which also invites more contentious AfDs. Deleting this article will lead to more avoiding of the core issue in favour of fights over individual articles; keeping this will move the debate on the guideline back to the general case, where it belongs. EdChem (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The score is draw. We even have the same number of double !votes for both opinions. What could be the conclusion, except from keep ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close will be based on the deletion guideline WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, which notes "Consensus is not determined by counting heads (e.g. number of iVotes on one side vs. another), but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." -- Jreferee (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another difficult issue will be how to interpret a "no consensus" result - normally this defaults to keep, but in the case of an article recently recreated after a deletion discussion, there is an argument to be made that it should default to delete. StAnselm (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, given that the article was immediately recreated after a previous Delete consensus was endorsed at DRV, with just enough cosmetic changes to scrape by G4 but with no genuine attempt to fix the problems, I think it's clear that in this case no consensus should default to delete. Another problem is that the article depends entirely on two very scant sources containing exactly zero actual prose, and both of which seem to be inaccurate and unreliable. Before too much weight is given to keep votes citing NCRIC, it should be remembered that this guideline was written entirely by the Cricket wikiproject and inserted into the WP:ATHLETE subguideline with minimal discussion. Claiming it is binding on the rest of the encyclopedia is very dubious. Even if it was, SNGs at most only provide a rebuttable presumption of notability, not a guarantee, and this AfD has definitively rebutted it. Reyk YO! 15:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to know on what you base your view that www.cricketarchive.com and www.espncricinfo.com, the two main sources cited, are "inaccurate and unreliable". I've been using these sites and citing them within WP for more than 10 years, and they both provide a superb service with very high accuracy: probably in the order of 99.99%+. Moreover, in my experience, where they don't know something, as with this cricketer's first name, they give only the information that they actually have. I'd be interested to know if you have found different in your cricket researches. Johnlp (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them claim this S. Perera is two different people. When you're writing a biographical article and both sources get the man's identity wrong, that's a pretty glaring error in my view. Reyk YO! 16:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them agree that a cricketer of this name appeared for Old Cambrians and a cricketer of this name appeared for Kurunegala Youth in first-class (major) matches. They don't know if this is one cricketer or two, but are prudently not conflating the two: their information comes direct from scorecards and reports of matches. That's not an error on their part: it's a highly reasonable position in the absence of further information which they don't, as yet, have. Both of these websites, like WP, are works in progress: if it's proved that this is one cricketer, and not two, then doubtless they will update. Do you have other instances of their "inaccurate and unreliable" status with which you might enlighten us? Johnlp (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So... if they don't know if it is the same, we should write the following "S.Perera is the name of one or two cricketeers who played for Old Cambrians and Kurunegala...", which is hardly a suitable article. Even more reasons for deletion.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. We should write only what we can verify. Which is that a cricketer called S. Perera played for Old Cambrians... which is essentially the article as it came into this process. The title of this AfD rather gives a clue to the fact that we are talking about this specific bit of verifiable information and this single specific cricketer. Johnlp (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words, this article will likely be in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not permanently, a WP:PERMASTUB. A good reason to delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because as the not-quite-verified contentions above have demonstrated, there is scope for expansion and for new information to emerge when more Sri Lankan sources are available. No one is suggesting that this is the definitive finished version of this article: like much of the rest of WP, it is a work-in-progress. There is, I would reckon, considerably more scope to improve this article, given the paucity of Sri Lankan articles on WP and the likelihood of untapped sources, than there is for many other similarly small articles: for example the baseball article Hillebrand (baseball) that I cited earlier. Johnlp (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from Dweller

I note that PERMASTUB (which is a user's essay, rather than policy, but anyway) says the following:

"It is important to note that permastubs are articles that cannot be expanded. A stub – even a stub on what you see as a trivial topic – is not a permastub if there is verifiable and encyclopedic information that can be added to it. The importance of a topic is not a factor in how much can be written about it – we have Wikipedia:Featured articles on things that are obscure and strange."

...and there is no evidence that this article cannot be expanded. In fact, I expanded it slightly myself just yesterday, and I would hope that some of our Sri Lankan editors, who have access to non-English and paper sources can expand this further.

The job of this AfD is to decide if this chap is or is not notable, which can be based either on GNG or a specialist subject notability guide. The members of the Cricket WikiProject have a simple and effective guide. While we wring our hands and argue the toss over certain individuals, like those who play in youth international cricket, we all agree that anyone who demonstrably has played first-class cricket, that's cricket at the highest domestic level, is definitely notable.

This is an encyclopedia. Deleting anyone who has played first-class cricket makes this encyclopedia less encyclopedic. You may think this person's biography is a trivial topic, but that's just POV. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, no, we most certainly do not all agree that every first class player is automatically notable. I think I made that clear earlier, but since you weren't paying attention I'll repeat myself. NCRIC is a disputed guideline, written by the Cricket wikiproject and inserted into WP:ATHLETE with minimal discussion. It is strongly disputed whether this unduly lenient guideline is even legitimate. The fact of the matter is that this article hinges on two statistical entries that are probably inaccurate. This article fails WP:V and WP:BLP, and should be deleted, even if it just barely passes the non-binding and disputed NCRIC guideline. Reyk YO! 11:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but you can't [entirely absent yourself from ten years of discussions about notability since you signed the membership list in 2006, and then claim you don't agree. --~~
    I can, in fact, do exactly that. How many people signed up to wikiprojects ages ago, and subsequently forgot all about it? I can't be the only one. No, you cannot construe the silence of an inactive member as agreement with everything the wikiproject says and does. You're constantly putting words in people's mouths, but digging up decade-old edits to win an argument today is really fucking petty, even for you. Do you have nothing better to do than poke through dusty ancient recesses of other peoples' edit histories to hunt for gotchas? Knock it off. Reyk YO! 12:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You just called me a "jerkass" in an edit summary and accused me of "constantly putting words in people's mouths" and being "really fucking petty". If you're desperate to find yourself at ANI, help yourself, but ad-hominem stuff doesn't belong at an AfD, or anywhere on Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by every word. Criticism of behavior is not a personal attack. If you don't want your behaviour criticised, you should not do things like claiming "everyone agrees" when you know they don't (because I told you so explicitly), using decade-old forgotten edits to argue that I consented to something I never knew about, and hiding behind "WAAAAAdhominem" when confronted on tactics which I consider dishonest. Treat me with respect and I'll respond in kind; play dodgy games and I'll tell you exactly what I think of that. Don't like me speaking my mind? You know the way to ANI too and you've got the right to report me for whatever you want at any venue you like- but we both know that, per WP:BOOMERANG, you dare not. Do you have anything to say about the article relying on erroneous sources and therefore failing WP:V and WP:BLP, or has this little tanty just been a deflection from the actual issue? Reyk YO! 13:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no erroneous sources and there are no BLP issues. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Both sources claim there are two S. Pereras, when it seems that there is only one. Getting a person's identity wrong in a biographical article is about the most glaring error I can imagine. Reyk YO! 14:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I have changed WP:NCRIC during the discussion (difflink).--Müdigkeit (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I endorse Müdigkeit's change to NCRIC. Reyk YO! 12:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change reverted until there's a consensus to change it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have requested admin attention to this discussion, and possible closing this nearly two-week-old AfD. EdChem (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Can I vote here? If not, I am sorry for this vote. I am new here so do not know the rules to comment out here. I just want to say that I have seen the article. I have added a couple or so of links to the article. I think that the Old Cambrian player S. Perera might not be the same Perera as the one who played later for Kurunegala. There is no source I have been able to find to connect the two Pereras. My thought is that we should delete the sentences that contain details of the Kurunegala club. At the same time I think we should keep this article so editors like I can over the weeks check library archives of Sri Lankan papers and scholarly publications accessible to me and build this article further. Thank you and please erase my comment if I am not authorised to vote here. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:30, 30 December 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 and G11; non notable and promotional. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free Flights to Italy[edit]

Free Flights to Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage from reliable independent sources and appears to be advertising for an organization. I note that the top google search for free flights to Italy is from a linkedin blog entry from Giuseppe Macario. The user who created this page sources many of his edits from blog entries from this person. Dan Eisenberg (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment The international NGO domain is granted to eligible organizations only after a decision made by ICANN/PIR. Why shouldn't they be reliable independent sources? The requirements are:
  1. Focused on acting in the public interest. Whether in support of education or health, the environment or human rights, members of the .ngo|.ong community work for the good of humankind and/or the preservation of the planet and do not promote discrimination or bigotry.
  2. Non-profit making/non-profit-focused entities. While many NGOs engage in commercial activities or generate revenue in support of their missions, members of the .ngo|.ong community do not recognize profits or retain earnings.
  3. Limited government influence. Recognizing that many NGOs have important interactions with government, not least for reasons of funding (which may include receipt of some government funding in support of their programs), members of the .ngo|.ong community decide their own policies, direct their own activities and are independent of direct government or political control.
  4. Independent actors. Members of the .ngo|.ong community should not be political parties nor should be a part of any government. Participation in the work of an .ngo|.ong is voluntary.
  5. Active Organizations. Members of the .ngo|.ong community are actively pursuing their missions on a regular basis.
  6. Structured. Members of the .ngo|.ong community, whether large or small, operate in a structured manner (e.g., under bylaws, codes of conduct, organisational standards, or other governance structures.)
  7. Lawful. Members of the .ngo|.ong community act with integrity within the bounds of law.
This is not "advertising", but a list of requirements written by ICANN/PIR. Do you know more authoritative sources? Also, if you think the article contains ads, why didn't you mention/discuss them in the Talk page instead of nominating the whole article right away? Basically, you don't like my edits (which is the gist of your explanation, apart from the first sentence). --Bianbum (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Domain registry rules are utterly irrelevant to the question of NOTABILITY. kashmiri TALK 22:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:N. No coverage in secondary sources, something one normally expects from a present-day charity. Zero (!) Google hits on "Free Flights to Italy" +NGO -Wikipedia. Extremely doubtful that this is even a registered organisation (no registration number nor HQ address mentioned on the site). The only info is through a LinkedIn Post of its "President" [18] and it all looks like a vote buying scam. Should be speedy deleted under G3, G11 and A3. I suggest closure per SNOW. kashmiri TALK 22:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I strongly suspect the creator and principal contributor has a vested interest in the site and, seeing his edit history, I am considering an ANI report. kashmiri TALK 23:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 December 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 Miss Oregon#Winners. Spartaz Humbug! 11:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Wallace[edit]

Ali Wallace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Formula article on another Miss Oregon who should be redirected to the Miss Oregon article according to the guidelines at WP:NOPAGE. The trivia of not winning as a teen and not winning Miss America does nothing for establishing notability or the need for a standalone article. Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: While I see Legacypac's point, Ms. Wallace didn't win either pageant she was in, there are still 15 sources on the page. While there are several links to the various pageants, there are five newspaper articles and one Billboard article. You could say Ms. Wallace is notable for losing, in this case. I believe with the many sources that the article meets GNG and N. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I was not clear. She won Miss Oregon, the article her name and basic info is best presented on is Miss Oregon. WP:NOPAGE assumes notability, which the refs might be used to establish. Legacypac (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. sst✈(discuss) 09:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass, obvious notability supported by the sources present in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the sources are about the pageant itself, providing a round up of the contestants etc. I do not consider that to be significant coverage of the individual in question. As far as the billboard article, that is about the song she apparently danced to, with absolutely no mention of her or the pageant. This article is almost the epitomy of over sourcing attempting to show notability, which if anything does the reverse...if this is the best that can be come up with it is clear to me that notability is not established. Polequant (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be more a case of WP:ROUTINE and WP:NEXIST. The sources are your typical "our local person is participating" or the general coverage of the event from primary sources from the various years or pageant-related sources. There is nothing beyond that to denote widespread or regular coverage of the subject. I couldn't find any mention of her at all in the Billboard reference, so that doesn't do anything to establish notability of this subject. The article is well-written (again, see WP:NEXIST, but a notable subject? Doesn't appear to be so. Same for the article on her mother. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficiently sourced, and at least as notable as most of the Pokémon characters. Collect (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her notability is for winning the Miss Oregon title; subject easily crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each time editors have asked you to produce a policy that says a state level pageant winner is automatically notable you have not been able to do so, therefore your stock response is misleading and disruptive. It is also not enough to claim "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources" you will need to show such coverage exists.You might also wish to review the WP:NTEMP policy which says "In particular, if reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Legacypac (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment discussions for redirect should ideally take place on the article talk page, not AFD. clpo13(talk) 05:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 13:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  18:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—agree with JonRidinger on the issues of WP:ROUTINE coverage being used to satisfy GNG. There is not significant coverage of Ms. Wallace separately from the pageant to demonstrate notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good sources, notable for winning Miss Oregon. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no one has ever been able to show a policy that says winning a state pageant confers automatic notability. Since pageants are entertainment put on by companies like Carousal Productions and the participants model eveningwear and swimsuits and perform talents, they fall under WP:NMODEL as models/entertainers which contains tests that this person completely fails. Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or redirect to Miss Oregon. Also, she aint no Pikachu. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss Oregon Unless there is something ELSE notable about her, other than winning a state level pageant, there isn't a need for a separate article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:38, 18 December 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misa (moth)[edit]

Misa (moth) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. I can't find any reliable sources that describe the topic well. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 17 December 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. KTC (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Akoh[edit]

Jeff Akoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too soon, fails WP:MUSBIO —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject is notable for a single event, Project Fame West Africa, which is well-documented in multiple reliable sources.He also recently signed a record deal. Meatsgains (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case of WP:BLP1E, please see our common outcomes on contest winners. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 03:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this page does not fall under WP:BLP1E and is notable on a national scale. Meatsgains (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep at least for now as the current sourcing along with what I found at News and browsers suggests even if only a marginally notable and acceptable articele. Notifying Nigerian user Wikicology and also African user Versace1608 for local insight. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WINNEROUTCOMES. Winners of contests, games of skill, and other competitions are subjects of some disagreement. Such articles are generally kept as notable only at the national level. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: The subject of this article fails every criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, and hasn't been discussed extensively in reliable sources. Having said that, Project Fame is a regional music talent contest that features contestants from Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. I vote a weak keep because the subject of this article passes WP:WINNEROUTCOMES. If WP:WINNEROUTCOMES didn't exist, this article should easily be deleted. Versace1608 (Talk) 23:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:WINNEROUTCOMES is an essay, not even a guideline and WP:BLP1E is policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MTN Project Fame is a significant and a notable contest in Africa. BLP1E applies If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Are you saying MTN Project Fame is not a significant contest? If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:15, 18 December 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. KTC (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buthaina Shia[edit]

Buthaina Shia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. A search for any sort of news articles mentioning the subject turns up no results whatsoever. The only citation is to a primary source. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nn. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 18 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of state governors of the United States who were Freemasons[edit]

List of state governors of the United States who were Freemasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic is not notable enough for a stand alone list article. The intersection between being the Governor of a US State, and being a member of a Masonic Lodge is non-notable (Conspiracy theorists may talk a lot about which US Presidents were Freemasons, but not even they talk about which Governors were members of the fraternity). It is unlikely that anyone would search for this topic. Besides, anyone who would qualify for this list is already listed in one of our List of Freemasons articles. Blueboar (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete nonnotable subject fr a list. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The attempt to make a connection between US governors and free masons is a long shot. Plus, IMO, the list of only 5 governors is too short to have its own page. Meatsgains (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, this was created from a category which was deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_24#Category:Monarchs_who_were_Freemasons. As the creator of that category is Blueboar, who showed a change of view during that discussion and is now the nominator here, it seems unlikely that there will be a consensus to keep this one. – Fayenatic London 18:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record... Yes, I did create that category. I though that it might work as a category (actually a sub-cat of the broader Category:Freemasons) ... it didn't. But as a list topic it's worse. Category groupings don't need to be notable (they need to be defining, which is slightly different)... list topics, on the other hand, do need to be notable, and this topic isn't. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In its present form, this article fails notability. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 18 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Owais Raza Qadri[edit]

Muhammad Owais Raza Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. MusaTalk ☻ 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 15:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 15:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 15:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete tagged since 2010. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally fails WP:GNG based on (lack of) GBooks and GNews hits. I would have BLP-PRODed it for a complete absence of sources in this biography of a living person, if it had not been created before 2010. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreferenced BLP. LibStar (talk) 16:08, 22 December 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. KTC (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Ali Qadri[edit]

Farhan Ali Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. MusaTalk ☻ 15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 15:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one hit in GBooks/GNews, where the guy is subject of a criminal offence. I wouldn't call that "significant coverage", especially since the news report lacks sufficient basic biographical information. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 22 December 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 as I think it's safe to say that whatever troubles this article may have, the current sources are enough and acceptable. Note the author LaMona, who frequently participates at these authors AfDs, was apparently not notified at all. Certainly other articles needing AfD instead of this one at this time (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Coste Lewis[edit]

Robin Coste Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for Wikuspedicus (talk · contribs), whose rationale was provided here. They are, of course, invited to revise and extend their remarks. No comment on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

38 words are not an article - no notability - conflict of interest: author might know described student in person. Even the so called biography is a paraphrased plagiarism from an article used as reference. Original: Lewis is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Southern California with a fellowship in Poetry and Visual Studies. Plagiarism: Lewis is in the Ph.D. program at the University of Southern California. She has a fellowship in Poetry and Visual Studies. Wikuspedicus (talk · contribs) 15:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Subject has seen coverage in the New York Times, the New Yorker, Slate, has published works in several journals and has won a National Book Award. Subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. /wia🎄/tlk 17:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 18 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Pasha[edit]

Roshan Pasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fake person. To cite Nedim Ardoğa from the creators talk page: "In sources on Selim I there is no reference to Kathira. Besides Kathira as well as two other names in the article Jahan and Roshan are not Ottoman names." Arved (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I have suggested that the article on his wife (allegedly a Sultan's daughter be merged here, but being a Sultan's son-in-law does not make him notable by itself. If however, he held some office of note in the Ottoman Empire, so that he was independently notable, it might be kept. Possibly userify. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 20 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Şehzade Jahan[edit]

Şehzade Jahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

To cite Nedim Ardoğa from the creators talk page: "In sources on Selim I there is no reference to Kathira. Besides Kathira as well as two other names in the article Jahan and Roshan are not Ottoman names." Arved (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN, unless edited to show that he was notable in his achievements. The article Şehzade says that it means an Ottoman prince, descended in the male line from a Sultan: he was only descended in the female line. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 20 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kathira Sultan (daughter of Selim I)[edit]

Kathira Sultan (daughter of Selim I) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fake person. To cite Nedim Ardoğa from the creators talk page: "In sources on Selim I there is no reference to Kathira. Besides Kathira as well as two other names in the article Jahan and Roshan are not Ottoman names." Arved (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 18 December 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 Agni Yoga. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 08:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Living Ethics[edit]

Living Ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This pseudoscientific attempt to justify Agni Yoga has received zero notice in the relevant academic fields on which it claims to offer relevant commentary. Per WP:NFRINGE and WP:FRIND, therefore, Wikipedia cannot host an article on such a subject. jps (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, Cleanup. .we have plenty of articles on various kookery. WP:FRINGE applies to use references to kookery in other articles, i.e., we cannot describe teaching of Living Ethics in the article "Life". But notable kookery os OK to be described in article about itself. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup or Merge to Agni Yoga. Certainly fringe, but well-established. There must be sources attacking it though, which should be added. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Agni Yoga. Insofar as there's any coherent text in the Living Ethics article, it does say that the two terms are equivalent. Tevildo (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's something notable here, but merge to Agni Yoga looks the best option as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 09:36, 21 December 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 nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Feiner[edit]

Paul J. Feiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a politician notable primarily as a town supervisor and a non-winning candidate for election to Congress. Neither of these are claims that satisfy NPOL — outside of the rarefied class of major metropolitan global cities a municipal councillor gets an article only if he can be sourced and substanced well enough to pass WP:GNG, and non-winning candidates for office are only eligible for articles if they were already eligible for some other reason independent of their candidacy. And the sourcing here is entirely of the primary source variety — a meeting schedule on the town's website and his own self-published Blogspot blog — so GNG hasn't been met, or even really attempted, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it WP:SPIP? No independent sources. Delete. 45sixtyone (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell about whether it was self-promotional, it looks possible, but since it fails notability it really does not matter. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails NPOL, and aside from articles about his status as a candidate for New York's 20th congressional district, there is no significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Town supervisor for 24 years and counting of town of 88k residents, who does seem to have garnered sufficient independent RS coverage to satisfy GNG, particularly this lengthy piece in the NY Times. I will update sourcing in the article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have added 12 refs to the article, most of which address the subject extensively, including two lengthy NY Times pieces dedicated to this subject--the one mentioned above, and this one, about his trials and tribulations fundraising for his 1998 Congressional campaign. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The piece linked in your first comment is definitely a step in the right direction. This one, however, doesn't contribute notability points — media have a public service obligation to grant coverage to all candidates in all election campaigns involving their coverage area, so campaign coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE and cannot count toward GNG except on the very rare occasion that it nationalizes into something on the order of the media firestorm that ate Christine O'Donnell in 2010. Bearcat (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reading of WP:ROUTINE. If it were an election summary with paragraphs about each of the candidates, of course, but this thousand-word profile in the Times surely exceeds routine coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point, we exclude articles about failed candidacies from consideration. When you take those away, you don't have much. --Bejnar (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that subject is inherently notable under NPOL. Failure to qualify on NPOL grounds does not disqualify a subject who meets GNG. I would urge other editors to review the article, its refs, and other sources available online and judge for themselves whether subject meets the general notability guideline. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Keep I ran a proquest news archive search, and just added a long article from the New York Times analyzing his first year as Supervisor. The Times followed his work in that position for years, and also covered his runs for Congress. As did other papers. Extensive, detailed coverage of his political career in RS exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the one I put on the page [19], which is a long discussion of his first term as Supervisor, here is the search of the NYTimes archive on Finer: [20]. It one about the tough time he has running for congress: [21] a feature story about a spat tiwh the Fire Chief involving an ethnic slur [22], a long profile of him as a political activist [23], in-depth coverage of his run for supervisor [24], a color story about a development battle between Feiner and a beloved golf driving range [25] - and that doesn't even get us to the end of the 1st page in the Times archibve search. There is more in-depth stuff. I am getting the idea that he was a colorful politician. Of course, the Times website is password protected. I am working from a machine wired into powerful search engines. Do these stories not come up on searches non-subscribers to the New York Times run? I can see where that would be a problem.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I didn't do more than scan these sources, but the coverage war far form positive. It if's a vanity article, it may be poor judgment on the creator's part. We are all in User:Bearcat's debt for his labor screening ot non-notable, local politicians and pages for politician wannabes. but this one can be closed as keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously more notable then your typical Miss Oregon USA who automatically gets an article based on one mention in a local paper. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not convinced. Several sources have been added but they are of the "local interest" variety; we could likely find the same sort of coverage for any local-level politician who's served for a couple decades. It doesn't demonstrate notability. The NYTimes sources are compelling, but they are also exclusively confined to the "regional" section, the section for local-interest news, which also contains "Things to do in New Jersey" listings. I don't think that GNG is met, despite everyone's genuinely hard work to find sources. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised by your assertion, so I went back and checked. a search on: Paul J. Finer Greenburgh got over a thousand hits on Proquest. I never see that many at an AFD; people with that kind of coverage don't get to AFD. And that is despite the fact that hits on those 2 local papers seem not to have archives going back to Feiner's most acttive era. I did not read every article ans will not make grand sweeping claims about their being "exclusively confined" to any particular thing. I did jump to p. 10 of the search, where it looked like coverage of routine county business. But the earlier pages had many strange and colorful headlines. Moreover, while many articles on Feiner are in the Westchester edition, others are not. Westchester, of course, has a population of a million people. I'm not sure that we can dismiss the Westchester edition of the Times a s "local". There are town-level papers, and were mre in Feiner's era. The The Journal News, is a recent merger of several of the local papers that were still lively in the Feiner era. Coverage of Feiner in the Times is more like the activities of a particular suburban supervisor getting coverage in a major regional daily. ( Oh , there is also coverage in the regional Westchester County Business Journal). In the Times, though, coverage takes on a different character. They cover him as a character. Because I thought that some of the stories I listed above weren't local, I clicked one I hadn'd click on before, chosen for its colorful title, "Let the Circus Come to Town Greenburgh's Banning of Animal Performances Is a Misstep". Not a "routine" story about a local town policy. On Proquest I see that it ran in the Westchester edition on 9 June 2002; but searching the Times archive I find it in the International edition on June 9, 2002. under shortened title Soapbox: Let the Circus Come to Town, by JANE CHAMBLESS WRIGHT. Then the Times ran a follow-up story on 16 June, " This was not a low-key, local debate. A hearing before Greenburgh's town supervisor, Paul J. Feiner drew more than 150 people and attention from animal rights advocates as far away as Maine, Florida and England. Circuses, speaker after speaker said, were little more than a tradition of sanctioned animal abuse.
What? Are they nuts? asked Lynn Goodman of North White Plains, standing outside the Cole Brothers tent before the last afternoon show. Has everyone gone crazy? The circus is great.
Animal advocates say it is impossible to create spectacles like elephants standing on their heads or tigers leaping through hoops of fire without terrifying the animals into submission." Clearly, Feiner was so colorful that the Times treated him to coverage beyond routine. And at least sometimes ran it in non-Westchester editions. If the edition of the paper is what this hangs on (I argue that the Westchester edition is a major regional , not a local paper) - someone needs to comb through those articles before deleting.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed your indent, hope that's okay. I see what you mean, and you have access to a search tool that I don't think I do, so my review is based only on the sources which are already in the article and those I dug up on Google, which backed up my assertion, but I'll take your word on your search results. I think it's probable that Feiner has achieved notability only by inheriting it from things that happened in Westchester during his tenure as town supervisor (which is like mayor, I assume? a prominent position anyway) but then there's enough of those things and Feiner has been around long enough that we'd end up with an article on him even if we followed the letter of the guideline and only wrote articles about the events. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the exchange above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still like to see a bit more improvement here if at all possible, but I'm convinced that enough has been done here to satisfy WP:GNG. While it's true that municipal-level politicians don't get an automatic WP:NPOL pass just for existing, they are eligible for consideration under NPOL #3 if a genuinely substantive and well-sourced article can be written — and this article is now quite a bit more substantive, and significantly better sourced, than it was at the time of nomination. Thanks to Hobbes Goodyear and E.M. Gregory. Bearcat (talk) 00:30, 19 December 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) Onel5969 TT me 16:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Digon[edit]

Digon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article had the history of Degenerate polygon before it was moved on January 13, 2015 by Double sharp to Improper regular polygon and then by Steelpillow on September 6, 2015 to Degenerate polygon. It is now redundant to there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am no longer completely sure about merging monogons and digons, as the latter are far more legitimate - they make sense as abstract polytopes. The monogon does not as it has two 1-sections that are not line segments. (It doesn't have any 1-polytopes as elements, for a 1-polytope must have two endpoints - a 0-sphere - and the single "edge" of the monogon has but one.) It seems like they may be better separated. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - and comment: It is actually the degenerate polygon article that should be AfD-ed. That article fails WP:NOTABILITY - there is no mathematical literature devoted to the degeneracy of polygons, it is just a rag-bag of cases which get passing mention in the literature. For the same reason, wikipedia doesn't have articles on degenerate graphs or degenerate elephants either. On the other hand the digon itself is most useful when it is not degenerate, such as in spherical geometry, graph theory, abstract polytope theory, etc. and its properties are discussed in sufficient depth in sufficient sources to establish its notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for the reasons spelled out by Steelpillow; a digon emphatically is an important geometric shape in non-euclidean geometries, and seemingly also in other fields I'm less familiar with. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -- a moment's web searching confirms that "digon" is a term frequently used in the mathematical literature, with a specific meaning that is separate from some general conception of degenerate polygons. Degenerate polygon smushed this, and the monogon into a single article in a way that did not improve the coverage of either. Accordingly, I have also rescued monogon, and made degenerate polygon into a redirect to a subsection of degeneracy (mathematics), where any specifics that are not already covered by monogon or digon can be mentioned. -- The Anome (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Digon is a standard term in geometry for a line segment with multiplicity two. This way, one gets all cyclic groups as rotation symmetries of polygons. I've also seen digon used to refer to a lune of the sphere, but I think that is probably best kept completely separate. Sławomir
    Biały     14:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC) Although, I am sorely tempted to vote delete, for the sake of using the pun: "Let digons be bygones."[reply]
Comment:' yes, I've seen that too. I've created digon (disambiguation) to deal with that, and added {{otheruses}} to the top of the digon article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The spherical lune is in fact an example of a regular digon: Coxeter provides a rock-solid reference in Regular Polytopes. The two articles need to acknowledge each other, as their subjects overlap although they are distinct (not all digons are lunes, while treating the circular lune as an irregular digon would not be sensible). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, digon (disambiguation) is therefore misconceived and should be deleted. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The digon has also been called the "bigon" in our culture's habitual mashing up of Latin prefixes with Greek suffixes. That has pretty much fallen out of use nowadays so we can truly say "let bigons be byegons" without fear of deletion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - It might be merged and redirected into Lune_(geometry)#Spherical_geometry, although you might also argue the spherical lune section be merged here, and focus the lune article on the 2D cases. Mathworld splits into 2 article Lune and SphericalLune, and a third "degenerate" digon. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it should definitely not be merged into the lune article, as that's only one special case of a digon. There are two concepts here: the abstract concept of a digon, without regard to being embedded in any space, which needs its own standalone article, and one possible realization of a digon, embedded within a spherical surface, which should be mentioned in both the digon and lune articles. -- The Anome (talk) 13:08, 21 December 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 procedural keep. Closing in accordance with the other AfD mentioned in the nomination statement. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2015[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Miss Earth 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please see rational and place all comments here for the group: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_10#Miss_Earth_2001 Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - per WP:GNG. This is an ongoing and world wide noted pageant. One of the two very top pageants within the Big 4. Over a billion viewers each year. Sources seems ok and the final will air in over 100 countries.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yes I am placing a comment here even though there are a main article for the entire lot. But this one is ongoing and that is a different case. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey have you looked at the excessive detail here? Snowman building competition winners? Tree planting top three? Entries, exits, replacements... This is not the Olympics. Maybe you want to give it a trim? Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:36, 17 December 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. Procedural close per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Earth 2001. (non-admin closure) Yash! 00:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth 2013[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Miss Earth 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Please see rational and place all comments here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_10#Miss_Earth_2001 Legacypac (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:36, 17 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Scott Treatment Des Concierge[edit]

The Scott Treatment Des Concierge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article written by paid contributor, which appears to fail the notability guidelines. What coverage does exist seems to mostly be based solely on press releases. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have checked the Hollywood Reporter article listed as a source, using Nexis. The extent of the coverage of The Scott in the article is as follows: "(Interestingly, the facilities report a recent decline in cocaine addiction among local clients, with a rise in prescription pain killers. Says Kat Conway, owner of The Scott,"I have people that come in on 15 to 30 medications," including Vicodin, Valium, Xanax, Klonopin, Oxycontin and Percocet.)". Cordless Larry (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys! I understand Wikipedia has many policies, but I have noticed that other private rehabilitation centres, such as Passages Malibu, have a Wiki article. I do not quite understand what the issue with this one is. Please let me know.--Kalina3112 (talk) 07:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is the subject's notability, Kalina3112. To summarise, articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If there are similar articles that fail to meet this requirement, then they will have to be looked at, but their existence doesn't really have a bearing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've checked Passages Malibu and it cites some sources that go some way to demonstrating notability. For example, this, this and this cover the topic in some depth. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. --Kalina3112 (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for tagging me in this deletion. I feel that at this present time, the article mostly reads like an advertisement and really does not belong on Wikipedia, unless it it pretty much completely rewritten. TheInformativePanda (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advert with no evidence of wider notability. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to consist of promotional content only. Nothing to suggest notability, and no citations that would establish this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:13, 19 December 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. KTC (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vikram kochhar[edit]

Vikram kochhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional autobiography/CV of actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There is a claim of significance so I don't think it qualifies for speedy deletion, but I don't see notability. bonadea contributions talk 13:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Pure vanity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:30, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now perhaps as the only alternative would've been to redirect to the TV show and although my searches found several links at News and browsers so far to suggest he's somewhat known including for the TV show, there's simply nothing for a better article yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 18 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarra Iziah in der Mühlen[edit]

Tarra Iziah in der Mühlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no specific criteria for dancers, but does not appear to meet WP:ENT, WP:CREATIVE or even WP:GNG. Time has been left for improvement, but only unsourced additional information is being added. Melcous (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the links under references those are top news portals which cite all the details from her career , not to say compared to other wikis of dancers where there are no references at all and a general lack of modern/urban dancers on Wiki? References regarding Martha Graham dance or Millennium dance are not public but diplomas where submited when those articles where writen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.22.41 (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. India Singh (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. India Singh (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. India Singh (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator may well be right, but I'd also suggest she read WP:OVERTAGGING: peppering the article with redundant {{citation needed}} inline templates on each and every statement could be seen as disruptive editing, when a single {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}} template atop the article would suffice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. There has been an unreferenced tag on the article for months, however, and all kinds of information keeps being added without references. I was trying to show the editors that these kinds of claims require sources, but accept that there may have been better ways to do that. Cheers. Melcous (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the refs do seem to be in Croatian so I've added it to the above. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The whole point is that there exactly isn't any sourcing. Advertising herself on social media isn't sourcing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:31, 17 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol +[edit]

Bristol + (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm unable to find RS to show this meets GNG — Rod talk 15:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 17:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete challenging to search for the topic on search engines but I couldn't find anything. Based on the page it clearly fails the notability guidelines, just two non-independent citations and the topic is not likely to be notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am also unable to find any evidence of WP:N being satisfied. This seem to be part of a small set of self-referencing articles with no indication of notability from independent sources. Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 23 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akash op aurora[edit]

Akash op aurora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nath1991 (talk) 13:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear spam and boosterism, as can be seen by the categories added to the page and the addition of this page to the "1972" entry. Also, most of the sources only discuss him in passing. Graham87 15:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Holy SEO Batman! Of the links on the page, most of them are spam/referral/promotional. Not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If there was ever a reason for funnelling all new article creations through the article creation wizard via editor review, this must be a prime example. Wading through so many references to look for the nugget of notability was a considerable waste of time ; Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   16:34, 18 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brahim Diaz[edit]

Brahim Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested with reason on the talk page being that cause the player has played in youth tournaments and been selected for Spain at youth level, this player passes WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. That is however not the case, WP:NFOOTY states that a player must play in a fully-professional league which Diaz has not and there is not enough significant coverage to say he passes WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can be recreated if and when he plays in a fully pro match Spiderone 11:26, 23 December 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. Clearly this can't be a standalone because its an aggregation of negative information. Notable criticism should be woven into the narrative of the article itself. Since this was split out from the main article and remains in history, there is not attribution need to keep this around. Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Zwarte Piet[edit]

Criticism of Zwarte Piet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The content is under debate at the main article. This appears to be an attempt by a WP:SPA to isolate the criticism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  17:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for this page for all of the reasons that have already been discussed on the talk section of the original Zwarte Piet page. Constablequackers (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very much needed. Several studies show that the overall majority (90-95 %) of the Dutch populace support the character and do not perceive him to be racist. The previous article version (apart from being a mess) had about 50% of its text devoted to incidents, protests and criticisms. While I'm sure many of those were notable or valid, they shouldn't high jack the article. It remains a minority view and should be treated as such within the main article. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several polls? You've only cited one in this article. Where are the others? Please support your claims with reputable citations. Constablequackers (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That information could be added to the Zwarte Piet article, not segregated into an article that makes it seem that there is no opposition to the character. The way that you left it, it made it appear as though there was no opposition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the information contained within this new page does not qualify as "criticism." The decisions of Dutch businesses, Dutch festival organizers, Dutch school officials and even Dutch television networks to alter Zwarte Piet does not qualify as such. Granted, individuals like Russell Brand are critiquing the tradition but they do not much up the entirety of what's contained here. Again, this is a rundown on the events of the past several years. These passages are the combined efforts of no less than five Wikipedia editors who have spent the past several years researching news articles, writing updated information and making sure that everything is well cited in the original Zwarte Piet article. I'm sorry that all of this work does not meet with your approval, AKAKIOS, but it also doesn't grant you the right to cut and paste it all into a new, and poorly named, article that simply has no reason to exist. All in all, your actions reek of bad form and ill intent by an individual that is trying to hide all of this information from the public eye. Constablequackers (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, but if the previous article version really was the result of 5 editors searching for years on end for information about Zwarte Piet, than they we're either incompetent or extremely biased as the sheer size of news-material, studies and polls that is being published in support of Zwarte Piet exceeds that of the negative material and yet ... when reading the previous version one would swear this was not the case. This, again, is my point: I do not want to obscure or deny issues certain people might have with the character, I simply want the amount of attention given to them to match their popular support within Dutch and Belgian society.AKAKIOS (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the Zwarte Piet article is much more balanced, rather than an endless summation of incidents and newspaper articles, much better describing the current situation and cultural climate. Again, I am not against criticism, I am against the undue weight given to it in the main article. A criticism-article is needed if all information is to be kept. AKAKIOS (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add details about these polls to the original article but, once again, the section that has been once again added does *not* qualify as criticism and should not be treated as such. There is no need for the article you have created. As I have already noted, they are an encyclopedic rundown on a series of events. The UN incidents, the protests, the decisions to make changes to the characters at public events, on TV networks, etc. Criticism would consist of people making statements in editorials in newspapers or opinion polls. If this section were comprised entirely of that, you might have a point, but it isn't. Constablequackers (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add my series of polls would only make the article even more unreadable, chaotic and unclear as it would juxtapose a number of well researched polls which state the majority of Dutch people in support of the character against a disproportionately large number of (often unrelated) incidents which seem to indicate some kind of 'civil war' is occurring. The version you want is not representative of the actual situation here in the Netherlands, the current version proposed by me does do this. Once again I repeat myself in saying I do not want to delete the information present in your personal article-version, I simply want it to be placed solely in the appropriate article rather than having it dominate the main article. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are you Dutch or Dutch-speaking?AKAKIOS (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Immaterial. It's both an irrelevant and improper question. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So essentially what you're saying is what neo-Nazis say when criticism to that article is raised: we're just misinterpreted. We should certainly add the polls about how the Dutch think that ethnically entrenched racism is acceptable, but to the Zwarte Piet article. This article has no purpose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My question about being Dutch or Dutch-speaking is not irrelevant or improper. Firstly because nearly all of the detailed information concerning this subject, both academic, studies or general news items are in Dutch. Him (or you) not being speakers of Dutch not only would mean that you are unable to read most of the references you've added over the past years (as you claim) but also puts you at a severe disadvantage when asserting the validity of new or older references present in the article. What I find truly improper is the comparison you've now just made between neonazism and a holiday for children. I doubt that there is any country in the world in which neonazism would garner the support of 90%+ of the general populace. The fact alone that you could even make such a comparison (to me) proves the necessity of being able to read Dutch source material as well as a bias on your part, which (if I had such issues) would discourage me from editing this article in the first place. AKAKIOS (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is because 1) you are trying to out what people's nationality is and 2) you assume that one nationality has a right to define how the rest of the world discusses the subject. Neither is appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do read what I have said. Without speaking Dutch, the overwhelming majority of source material about the subject is unavailable to you. Being incapable of speaking the Dutch language, doesn't automatically make you the voice of "the rest of the world". This subject is a part of Dutch culture, if you have little to no affinity with that subject then you're at an intellectual disadvantage. I would encounter similar problems if I were to edit an article on Chinese proverbs, as I have no particular knowledge of Chinese or Chinese culture. To suggest I was interested in your language skills for any other reason is bad faith. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AKAKIOS: While the point you make about a language barrier is not without merit, arguing that because of a language barrier you are more of an authority than someone else is not going to persuade many people on Wikipedia. What you would need to do is argue convincingly while pointing to the highest quality sources that aren't available in English, making a case about WP:WEIGHT. You're likely already doing some of that, but from my perspective there needs to be a consensus based on that discussion first, before this article can be created. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming to be a greater authority because I can speak Dutch, I only point out that discussing this matter without knowledge of Dutch is more complicated as it means these users are dependent on English-sources which are bound to treat this subject from a different cultural perspective or -in the worst case- similar to a foreign freak show. One of the 'opposing editors' has referred to the character as "ethnically entrenched racism", that makes it hard for me to believe common ground can be found in spite of all the source material I have already provided and will continue to provide.AKAKIOS (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT: This article was first proposed for deletion, which was denied outright and the article does not conform to any valid reason of deletion:

  1. Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion (article was nominated, quickly denied speedy deletion.)
  2. Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria (not the case)
  3. Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish (not the case)
  4. Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (not the case)
  5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) (not the case, in fact Wikipedia supports and encourages summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material.)
  6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (not the case)
  7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed (not the case)
  8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (not the case)
  9. Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (not the case)
  10. Redundant or otherwise useless templates (not the case)
  11. Categories representing overcategorization (not the case)
  12. Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy (not the case)
  13. Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace (not the case)
  14. Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia (not the case, the page is essentially a spin off of already present established content.)

In other words there is no reason within Wikipedia policy to delete this article. The only reason why the above editors want to delete this particular page is because if it continues to exist, then their accumulated (and as has been proven and admitted, sometimes incorrect) collection of criticisms and incidents will no longer be featured in the main article in their current size. As of now, that loose collection of news incidents and quotes by celebrities occupies 40% of the articles total amount of information. That is ridiculously high, especially when considering (as conclusively proven above) that this is in effect a minority view on the matter. I once again stress it is not my intention to delete this information in the main article (unless incorrect of course) but that this to allow the Zwarte Piet article to be about its intended subject in a way in which criticisms are listed, but not stressed in a way that gives undue weight or distorts the magnitude of the issue. AKAKIOS (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually it was first redirected [26] by @Teb728: and you decided to revert that edit. It was then nominated for a speedy deletion by the same editor under an incorrect criteria and was rejected by @Boing! said Zebedee: an admin. I would argue it was split without discussion or consensus (the latter of which it still lacks) I then PRODed the article and user:Rhododendrites, who commented below, deleted that. I then brought it to AfD. Please get your facts straight. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, the request for speedy deletion was denied; those are the facts. You on the other hand, by calling this character "ethnically entrenched racism" even though you do not speak Dutch, have no particular knowledge of Dutch culture or probably ever having seen this tradition in real life, have shown that facts and objectivity do not matter to you. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, the request for speedy deletion was denied for technical reasons. Please don't misconstrue the reason or make it seem as though the admin that denied the speedy did so because this article is legitimate or that the admin endorses the article's content. I would not have taken it to speedy because there's no good reason to delete the article under the existing speedy criteria.
And your argument that I can't recognize "ethnically entrenched racism" because you think I don't speak Dutch (I have never confirmed or denied your request) again shows a flawed logic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my argument, that's your imagination. You used the wording "ethnically entrenched racism" to describe the Zwarte Piet figure, my argument is that in doing so you have disqualified yourself as an impartial editor of that article.AKAKIOS (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you linked my inability to discuss the topic adequately because I don't speak (or probably, more correctly, read) Dutch was linked to that (as is clearly seen in what you wrote). Sorry if I misunderstood your English as well. Are there other things I don't understand, or can we get back to deleting this article? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete and Redirect to Zwarte Piet (and restore the material there, though I don't think that qualifies as a merge here) without prejudice to recreation if consensus emerges in discussion on the main article that it's an appropriate WP:SPINOFF. For now, it's looking an awfully lot like a WP:POVFORK. See the page creator's comments above being about reducing the amount of criticism on the Zwarte Piet page ("I simply want the amount of attention given to them to match their popular support within Dutch and Belgian society"). There are "criticism of..." articles, but they're very rare, subject to a high degree of scrutiny, are always accompanied by thorough summaries left on the main article page, and require both an extreme amount of coverage of the criticism itself and a main article that's about a much bigger subject which would be dominated by the criticism in an WP:UNDUE way. I frankly don't know if a criticism article is justified, but think that's best discussed on the article talk page first. FWIW, I'm also not opposed to Userfying for the time being — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by that comment was simply that the article shouldn't consist of 40% criticisms (of the total article size) when only about 5% of the population (at best) supports/has these criticisms. That doesn't mean I consider them to be invalid, but they shouldn't dominate the main article in such a way that it makes it seem as if some sort of civil war is going on, hence the criticism article. AKAKIOS (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand, but you'll need to separate the argument about the degree of support within the population from arguments about WP:WEIGHT. The former is not relevant to the amount of coverage aspects of a subject receive. It does mean that the article should be clear about public support, but public support doesn't determine article weight. There are plenty of cultural subjects where a particular population considers it normal or at least inoffensive, but which is nonetheless written about by others as objectionable such that the appropriate weighting of the article would emphasize controversy/objections. I would give an example, but those that come to mind are so extreme as to be unhelpful. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I do not object to criticisms of the character nor do I expect it to reflect the majority Dutch opinion (though I would expect it to be given preeminence), but the way in which the previous version was presented, it made it biased. I also struggle to find a proper/tasteful example, but it would be like the article on atomic energy would for 40% focus on the inhumanity that atomic bombs cause, rather devoting attention to other capabilities and the history of its discovery. That's why I created the criticism article, rather than simply delete the information.AKAKIOS (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it's worth noting that I was the one who removed the PROD. Regarding "IMPORTANT: This article was first proposed for deletion, which was denied outright and the article does not conform to any valid reason of deletion:" - "Denied outright" is a bit strong. Anybody can deprod, and deprodding isn't necessarily a commitment to the quality/validity of the article. In this case, it looked like a sizable amount of criticism that could possibly justify a WP:SPINOFF and the PROD rationale had to do more with the page creator's intent than the validity of the spinoff. For those reasons, PROD didn't seem like the right way to go (AfD means there's more discussion and usually more people paying attention -- better for these less clear cases). In other words, I removed the PROD but don't object to an AfD, and in fact agree with the delete perspective. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I would rename it to "Zwarte Piet controversy" such as used here and (in translated form) here. The controversy itself has been receiving increasing attention in (inter)national media, which would warrant a spinoff article, of course with a summary + "see also" hatnote on the Zwarte Piet page. The current criticism article does need some rewriting, in particular the lead section to comply with WP:MOSLEAD. In addition to criticism, I imagine that a Zwarte Piet controversy article might include various incidents/"riots"/etc., international (UN) attention and responses to the controversy, such as recolouring Piet. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not news. and that is exactly what most of this article is, just news. The essential debate should be able to be presented in a short paragraph in the main article on Zwarte Piet. If that is done, then no content fork is necessary, and there will be no undue emphasis. No redirect is required since "Zwarte Piet" is the primary search term. --Bejnar (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete separate criticism articles are reserved, if at all, only for huge topics. The info here could be easily merged in the main article, and there's no need for a redundant redirect. Also, there's the SPA account issue. AddMore der Zweite (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the topic is clearly notable over and beyond the cultural activity it critiques. I can't see that there is a policy reason for deletion, and clearly wikipedia sometimes allows separate describing criticisms of other ideas. In my view it is very likely that an edit war would result from an insistent on merge, and so keeping the articles instead of merging seems the best way to keep all content. JMWt (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was split without discussion and watered-down in the process. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very possibly true, but I don't see that makes any difference. Those celebrating a cultural norm are not going to want extended edit wars to include a large criticism section - and those who feel strongly that the criticisms should be recorded do not want to appear on a page that describes in detail the thing it is criticising. Clearly there exist extended sources both a) about the practice and b) about the criticism of the practice. That either of the pages today are inferior does not suggest that they should not exist, and as I said I fail to see a policy reason why they should not. Indeed, to retain maximum, sourced information without an unresolvable edit war it seems like the only way would be to keep both. JMWt (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at best it should be (re)merged but I really don't see a call for deletion here. Notability and sources are not a issue, and JMWt above gave some valid reasons for splitting the criticism into a separate article. Cavarrone 07:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to main page (for notable parts). We generally try to avoid creating criticism only pages: WP:CRITS. That's certainly true here where both pages are not particularly long, and this could be included on the main page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:43, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:16, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpectroCoin[edit]

SpectroCoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

ALthough supported by many refs, none appear to convey any notability and all are from a very niche interest group. This appears to be just one of very many similar organisations and it currently fails to meet WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   12:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As of now I must support deletion; most if not all of the sources given are associated with the company making this app, being either their website, press releases, or trade magazine "interviews" which are little more than press releases in a different format. All the sources do is indicate that this product/company exists, which does not meet notability guidelines. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches found links at News, browsers and Highbeam but certainly nothing for a considerably better notable and improvable article. Notifying tagger 331dot. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 22 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Roscoe[edit]

Leslie Roscoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is fictional, with its source a Fringe theatrefest show. See its creators' page where Roscoe is labelled their "imaginary friend". (I also performed a variety of checks prior to finding that). ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~~ 11:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the only provided source is connected with the subject. The article is entirely original research right now. Seems to pretty clearly fail the notability guidelines (whether he is real or not). FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my searches only found a few passing mentions here and there, certainly nothing for a better article. Like Jbhunley, it actually finally occurred to me this may also be fabricated so it's certainly delete either way if there's no actual article here, hahahaha. Notifying PRODer Jbhunley and also Onel5969 who asks to be notified of these subjects. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I remember the subject failed GNG and ENT when I first looked at him and I see nothing either in the article or a brief follow-up search to make me think he is notable. Maybe someone with access to specialist sources can find something on him, if so ping me and I will reconsider. JbhTalk 20:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Bah... should have read the nomination. Looks like this is a hoax. JbhTalk 20:48, 18 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A non Entity[edit]

A non Entity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this novel or its author are notable. A two-line announcement in the Hindustan Times seems to be the only reliable independent source giving any attention to this book. Amazon reviews or a text on a blog where the author is a contributor (gyandarbar) don't add any notability.

Also nominated: Agam Anand Fram (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]



NOW THIS page should not be deleted.

please send reason . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okbabby (talk • contribs) 18:17, 17 December 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Hindustan Times is too brief to show notability and the only one that looks like it might be usable is this bit in a paper. That by itself isn't enough to show notability and I was unable to find anything else that would show notability. Reviews on Amazon, SPS, or other unusable links cannot show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hardly even much to suggest a minimally acceptable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 08:50, 19 December 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. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented in the nomination. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America1000 13:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministerial trips made by Indira Gandhi[edit]

List of prime ministerial trips made by Indira Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should this list be a standalone article? The Avengers 10:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC) Reverted as per WP:BANREVERT.  03:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It should be a standalone article. Where would you suggest it should be merged to? It certainly would be undue if it were added the the main article on Indira Gandhi. There are articles for state visits by several major world leaders on Wiki. I dont see any reason why there shouldnt be one for Gandhi's foreign visits as well. Kinoko kokonotsu (talk) 13:29, 17 December 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. Sigh. Yet another old people AfD. Like most of these, we've got about half the people arguing, "The oldest X is notable" and the other half arguing, "No it's not". A smattering of WP:SPA activity, pretty much evenly distributed. Whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Stevenson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alice Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This lady was at the end of her life the oldest GRG verified person. However, many of the people with this distinction do not have articles. There are some sources but none have any details on her life, so we end up with a Bio that restates the info readily seen on the table here Oldest_people#Chronological_list_of_the_verified_oldest_living_person_since_1955 and on the UK article. This does a disservice to the reader who expects to learn something following the link. Per WP:NOPAGE this article should be deleted and the sources added to support her name in the appropriate list. (The list above, year of death, perhaps the UK country list). Legacypac (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Oldest person in the world and oldest Briton ever for a while. That's clearly notable. And no, I don't accept the NOPAGE rubbish that's trotted out on every single one of these supercentenarian AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument. Many people with this distinction DO have articles, so you're putting a biased spin on the situation. The article is well-sourced and I imagine it can be expanded. I agree, with Necrothesp, these never-ending AfDs are not constructive and need to stop. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
I agree it's well sourced and she is notable, but imagining a PERMASTUB can be expanded and being able to actually expand the WP:PERMASTUB are two very different things. Legacypac (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even try before nominating for deletion? -- Ollie231213 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Yes. Did you try before telling us you imagine it can be expanded? Legacypac (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is an WP:ASSERTN argument. " Thus, whether an article asserts significance for its topic is not germane when notability is at issue at an AfD discussion; what matters is the existence of reliable, secondary sources that are entirely independent of the topic that have published detailed content about it..." Can you provide anything like that? Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Delete If one follows our policy, this is an easy call. There is nothing in this article that cannot be covered in a list, per WP:NOPAGE. It's simply not biographical to detail a bunch of facts about other people and where they stood in relation to the article's subject in some mythical competition to live long. Announcing that a person who lives an extraordinarily long time is, by virtue of that fact alone, notable does not comport with our policies on notability. Perhaps, under our everyday understanding of the word "notable", some longevity enthusiasts might consider this person notable. But that's not how "notable" is defined on Wikipedia. It's not about whether a person is "worthy" of an article here, or whether they "deserve" one. It's about whether there is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. This article has references to a few reliable sources, but there's nothing significant here. It's like Gertrude Stein's observation about the Oakland, California of her time. Once you get there, there's no "there" there.
    It is not disruptive to try to improve our encyclopedia by pruning back a WP:WALLEDGARDEN that has, for far too long, proliferated articles and lists that defy our policies. As tired as the longevity hobbyists are of AfD's based on policy, please trust that the wikipedians working on correcting these out-of-policy accretions are equally tired of being accused of disrupting our joint endeavor. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if some of them are only short articles, she's covered in at least 9 sources. That looks like significant coverage to me. And can you please explain how better understanding of this subject can be achieved by deleting this article? She was the world's oldest person and the oldest British person ever at one time - that information could only be accessed by looking at two separate lists on different articles, whereas it can all be seen at once by having a standalone article. You're not "pruning back a WP:WALLEDGARDEN" any longer; that has already been done. A number of uninvolved editors have shown support for keeping many longevity articles which the usual "longevity deletionists" want to get rid of. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
all these sources say nothing that is not found on our list of super old people. Read WP:NOPAGE Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She received significant, albeit not very extensive, coverage for several years and was at one time recognized as having been the oldest Briton of all time. The fact that she is also currently recognized as having been the World's Oldest Living Person at one time further suggests that this person was in fact notable. The previous AfD was closed as "Keep" with the consensus that since she was the World's Oldest Person, she was also notable enough. It's now five years later and nothing regarding her status as titleholder has changed, so there is no need for a new AfD. 930310 (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article amounts to "this was the oldest person living in the 1970s born in a place that kept good birth records in the 1860s". Not at all a claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As usual after one filters out the minutiae of validation, there's nothing left but born, lived, died, which is best handled on a list. EEng (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with other users. related very similar articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Eliza Williams have closed as keep.--Inception2010 (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
don't intentionally mislead other editors. Legacypac (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Legacypac's right. The close was on Williams was no consensus. Inception2010, you really are making what appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation. EEng (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you address the nopage argument? Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've honestly tried to stay away from this type of article since do see both sides clearly. The main reason for my comment here is because from my search it appear notable enough. I think for a stub it's okay to remain that way, (but I obviously have no strong feelings about this!) --MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 23:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nopage argument should be made on the article talk page, not at AfD. clpo13(talk) 09:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She is already presented on the appropriate list, the question is do we delete or redirect this page? "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Then the article may be kept and improved, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page),userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy." Further, only superold people fans watch these pages so getting that subset of editors to delete based on a very low traffic page suggestion is highly unlikely. This topic was the subject of an ArbComm case, leading to discretionary sanctions, so requires special handling by all. Legacypac (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of notability is extremely clear and is backed up by multiple reliable and verifiable sources to create an article of appropriate length and scope. Alansohn (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Usual discussion, I see about one a week, would be good if policy guidelines captured this so I didn't have to bother reading these afds, can't recall ever seeing one of these deleted so it all seems a bit circular to me. Refs are fine and the page will never get any deeper, so be it. Szzuk (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at all these, you don't recall a single one being deleted? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I only use deletion sort UK. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When looking for significant coverage of her, there isn't much. As cited, citations 2-7 aren't for her for her but for her in terms of her ranking. There's two GRG citations, one to the Rejuvenation Research, and one to a demographic study, all of which are going to be just listings of her which seems to be what those five sources are for and not much more. From there, there's the Reading Eagle bit which is a trivial mention about her not taking medicine (which seems to be the implication of the Guardian piece although it's for the next oldest Briton). The Pittsburgh Press is another single-column blurb with little details, as is the Windsor Star (mostly about the number of claims rather than her) and the Leader-Post (that she turned 112). A sprinkle of random mentions across a number of pages isn't sufficient for an article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Biographies don't set a high bar. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect. WP:NOPAGE. While there are a good number of sources, this article tells us nothing (literally) that isn't already present in the table linked in the opening. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Howard[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brandy Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actress, making no strong claim of notability per WP:NACTOR — as written, her notability is parked entirely on television commercials, one-shot appearances as minor guest characters in sitcoms, and webseries. And the sourcing isn't adequate to satisfy WP:GNG either — most of the "sources" are blogs, and the few that do actually count as reliable sources aren't actually about her, but just glancingly namecheck her existence in coverage of other topics. This is different enough from the original article that it doesn't qualify for speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it still isn't different enough to have attained keepability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The filmography section needs trimmed due to not having sourcing but the subject is notable based on being the host of numerous television shows. I am not sure there is a level - i.e., "strong" - of notability that is needed. Here is one that she hosts [27] along with another here [28]. The career section names a few more. One network is Bravo which is not a website. Not a fan of Bravo, but its still a cable television network. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's no particular "level" of notability that's needed — the criteria for actors are vague enough that it's effectively possible to claim an WP:NACTOR pass for almost any actor who exists at all. But a Wikipedia notability criterion is not passed by asserting that it's passed — it's passed by reliably sourcing that it's passed. So there is a particular level of sourceability that's needed — but no sourcing has been provided here which even approaches that level, because it's sourced entirely to blogs, primary sources and glancing namechecks and not at all to any evidence of reliable source coverage which is substantively about her. Bearcat (talk) 09:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I agree that while her numerous TV/web appearances still don't add up to much industry coverage or recognition--and some of these blog source are of dubious merit---it seems wikipedia has allowed other pages to stand for performers of comparable accomplishment. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comparable accomplishment" has nothing to do with it — Wikipedia's inclusion rules aren't about what you can assert that a person did, but what you can verify in reliable source coverage that they did. It's even possible for a person to have accomplished more in principle than somebody else, while being less includable in Wikipedia because they generated less in the way of media coverage for it. A person can accomplish absolutely nothing of any real value but still get into Wikipedia anyway, if they're famous for being famous — and a person can have done genuinely important work but not get into Wikipedia for that, if their work was behind the scenes and below the media radar. If you're judging people on the substance of their accomplishments, for example, then I totally put Kim Kardashian to shame — but she gets media coverage and I don't, so she's in Wikipedia and I'm not. So two people of "comparable accomplishment" can also fall on opposite sides of that equation, if one of them got more media coverage for it than the other one did — Wikipedia's inclusion rules aren't about the accomplishment itself, but about the volume and quality of sourcing you can provide to verify the accomplishment. Bearcat (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep at least for now as it seems including with looking at her IMDb, that there's actually not as much as there could be for a better article, but more or less, the current version may be marginally acceptable for now. Notifying past AfDers Johnuniq, DGG, GB fan and S Marshall (the latter participated at DRV). SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many sources have been added; I consider none of them reliable for the purposes of establishing notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Her coverage fails WP:GNG, hence also fails WP:BLPNOTE. The lack of a claim to notability makes it difficult to find any basis in WP:NACTOR, and I didn't find one. The article says that she is well known for her television commercials, yet I could not find a reliable source to that effect, or really much of any source. Is it WP:OR? --Bejnar (talk) 09:49, 25 December 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. Noone has argued that this is sourced so there can be no policy based reason to keep this per GNG Spartaz Humbug! 11:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The View Episodes[edit]

The View Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic, unreferenced fancruft. ubiquity (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This one is tough. First, see Don't Call Things Cruft as that is not a reason for deletion. However, I am wondering other's opinions on lists. There is a list for television shows such as this - List of Scrubs episodes. There is NOT a list for shows similar to The View such as Today Show which leads me to believe live talk shows do not warrant episode lists. I cannot find anything to assist my decision so would love to know if there is a consensus for either one.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I was wrong to call it cruft. Let me state my objections without using the word:
  • There are no references or sources.
  • There is a vast amount of detail that would only be of interest to fans, and that information is readily available elsewhere.
  • The page only deals with Season 18, with no explanation of why that season is more notable than the preceding 17.
  • Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
I appreciate that the editor is putting a lot of effort into this, but I wish he would re-target his energies. ubiquity (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the redirection of energy, but it is not up to us to choose where they edit. I believe that Wikipedia contains way too many lists, but I want to judge this from guidelines and consensus, not my personal feeling. In fact, List of Scrubs episodes as mentioned above is a "a vast amount of detail that would only be of interest to fans, and that information is readily available elsewhere." So are the hundreds of other episode lists for other shows. While there are no references in the article, there are sources about individual episodes. As written, it could probably be speedily deleted, but in theory of being a list of episodes for a show, I am going to judge based on consensus. Can you point me to anything in Wikipedia that talks about which types of shows warrant a list of episodes and which ones do not? That would be extremely helpful as I cannot seem to locate anything - but I am sure it probably exists. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete because it could be expanded upon by other editors adding in seasons 1-current if necessary Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm fairly ambivalent about lists like these, and yes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, however we literally have over a thousand of these types of pages. That seems to say there is broad consensus to keep these types of pages as being inherently notable. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nearly all of those other lists are for dramatized series, for which episode lists outline the development of the series' narrative. There is a strong consensus for keeping those kinds of lists. Lists for talk shows, news shows, etc., need some special and specific justification. postdlf (talk) 12:43, 18 December 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  11:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of Sweden[edit]

List of ambassadors of Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopedic, circular reference, list of lists, and a misleading title. I would expect, per the article title, an article on ambassadors of Sweden, but it seems intended as a dab page of sorts. It also does not follow the precedent of the "Lists of ambassadors" pages, which list all current ambassadors from the stated country and are not used as dab pages. MSJapan (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I've prodded a few of them for now - if the prods are removed, I'll see if I can wrap them into this deletion discussion. MSJapan (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't create lists to link to other lists. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the list of lists of lists. Opera hat (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
not a reason in itself for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Please explain why someone using this search term should not get what they are looking for. Siuenti (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Lists of ambassadors of Sweden. As the nominator says, the current article title would lead one to expect a list of (current) Swedish ambassadors to other countries, which this is not. The ideal article would be one along the lines of List of heads of missions of the United Kingdom or Ambassadors of the United States, which give a list of current ambassadors, as well as links to lists of previous ambassadors to each country. Until such an article exists for Sweden, "Lists of..." is a more accurate title. Collating the current information is not useless, so deletion is not appropriate. Opera hat (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 09:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it may be a likely search term, as Opera hat points out, the title is misleading, therefore invalid. In addition, the nom's rationale is spot on. Onel5969 TT me 14:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The computer scientist in me is excited by adding another level of indirection (to any problem), but this isn't a CS class, it's an encyclopedia, and it doesn't work here. Strong objection to the proposed Lists of ambassadors of Sweden title; it may be accurate, but it looks too much like List of ambassadors of Sweden, and is bound to just cause confusion. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails selection criteria of WP:Stand alone lists, lacking stated criteria and lacking the support of reliable sources for those criteria. I agree with Onel5969 that while it may be a likely search term, the title is misleading. Because of its formatting it is only marginally useful as a navigation aid. In a reduced form it might better be part of a general article on Sweden's foreign relations. Right now the only function seems to be to add links to prevent other articles from being orphaned. --Bejnar (talk) 07:31, 26 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

V. V. S. Foundation[edit]

V. V. S. Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"http://vvsfoundation.org/" says it is a foundation based in Hyderabad, run by VVS Laxman. But here it says it is in Praksam district. It is quite unclear as it is the same foundation or any other. Vin09 (talk) 08:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Ihorivna Kovaliv[edit]

Julia Ihorivna Kovaliv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual, article reads like a resume and puffery piece JMHamo (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She can't even manage an article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia! Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete coverage is not in-depth. Article created by single purpose editor so suspicious WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 20 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potion (programming language)[edit]

Potion (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another programming language that didn't take off. There are bazillions of them. —Wasell(T) 18:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MusaTalk ☻ 20:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Whether it took off or not isn't at issue (see Ford Edsel). What's more important is whether anyone paid attention to it doing it. As the author was _why, that's likely to generate interest from the outset.
As to whether it "took off", then it has already. It's used by at least one group of drone flyers for image processing as it's fast, tiny and expressive for contemporary "what the cool kids are writing" coding style. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Have these drone flyers (or anyone else) publicly written anything that mentions that they are using the potion programming language? Dear Andy Dingley, do you have a name for this group or anyone in it? Even a few blog posts that don't qualify as Wikipedia:Reliable sources would lead me to support keeping this article a little longer -- that would convince me that there is a good chance this language will meet the Wikipedia: Notability guideline. Alas, I find it difficult to search for people using potion, because autocorrection tries to "help me" by giving me a bunch of irrelevant pages about finding position. --DavidCary (talk) 15:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it is discussed in independent reliable sources, it is well hidden. I did not find anything with GoogleScholar. A lot of the hits were typos for "portion", and there were several for "Magic Potion", a domain specific meta-Language. I did find papers on GoogleScholar mentioning both Michael Fogus and Reini Urban, but none dealing with Potion. Fails WP:GNG. It does sound like an interesting language and I recommend Reini Urban's summary here (not an independet source). --Bejnar (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another programming language with no obvious significance. The only thing in the article that looks like a reliable source is the Slate piece, but that one doesn't even mention the language. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's at best nothing to suggest a considerably better article here. SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 22 December 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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 07:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mirjana Puhar[edit]

Mirjana Puhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally merged this article to America's Next Top Model (cycle 21) as this model does not have any other notability other than appearing in a reality TV show but this was reverted without explanation. The primary reason for nomination is that this contestant's notability has never gone beyond the aforementioned show and being a murder victim does not mean she will pass WP:BLP1E, meaning that her notability is restricted to reality TV and nothing else. Donnie Park (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition that this article was created by a sock user, so I am to assume that this qualify for speedy deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the many (substantial) edits by others, G5 does not apply. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:25, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ninnghizhidda[edit]

Ninnghizhidda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing at all to even suggest minimal general notability and improvement and I still confirm and echo my original PROD: "Although German Wiki has three sources (two of them with URL links), there's simply hardly much here to suggest better notability and improvement and my own searches also found nothing better than a few passing mentions. I also considered changing to a redirect to that mythology but this word seems unlikely as a search.". SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources with which to expand the article. Seems to be a fairly obscure band. Fails notability guidelines. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:04, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gonin-ish[edit]

Gonin-ish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was removed by Cavarrone and I still confirm and echo my original PROD: "Seemingly questionably notable and improvable band article for which I found nothing better than an Allmusic page and a few other passing mentions". SwisterTwister talk 08:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 08:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Far too obscure and even the passing mentions in English mention how obscure they are. They haven't been active since around 2009. The only borderline notable member is the bassist, who went on to play for what can, with a great deal of charity, be called a pop group [29]. Someone please let this article meet its end with dignity; prolonging its existence is needlessly unkind. Jun Kayama 06:22, 20 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Bell[edit]

Tina Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. Google search (even for "Bam Bam Band Washington" turned up almost no results. Article cites absolutely no references or sources, and is completely empty aside from the infobox. MB298 (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk  14:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by all means as there's even hardly much here not even to suggest minimal general notability and I see why MB298 tagged it as A7. SwisterTwister talk 00:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an argument from the article's creator, posted on Talk:Tina bell, which I transferred to Talk:Tina Bell. MB298 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

I'm new to this, that being said, Tina Bell is a viable page. She died a couple of years ago, and we are using the page to help promote her musical contributions and authorship in the forming of the grunge sound. if you look at some of the references we have already listed, you will see that the drummer, Matt Cameron (Soundgarden, Pearl Jam) played in her band, Bam Bam, before her leaving the group and his moving on to play with other bands, ultimately leading to his success.

Her son, TJ Martin, is the first African American to receive an Oscar as a "director for documentary film", Undefeated, of which we are using some of his articles as her references, but most of the journals written about Tina are on microfilm (Seattle Post Intelligencer, and The Rocket newspapers) due to the years the band was active, and the sale or closing of both news journals. It will take me the weekend to get that information and figure out how to include it as a viable source.

I hope this is enough info to submit for an extension for this page. MB298 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft space. There isn't enough here yet to meet our inclusion criteria for musicians. I spent a bit of time trying to find sources, but I couldn't find anything significant. Although Bam Bam gets a few trivial mentions throughout digitized sources on Google Books, Bell herself isn't mentioned. Since the article is (or at least was) under improvement and there's a credible claim that offline sources exist (MB298 copied the post above from the article's talk page), I think we should at least consider the possibility of moving it to draft space, where the interested editors can work on establishing notability. Right now, the best it's got is inherited notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:25, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Jeffcock[edit]

David Jeffcock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a television documentary producer who would probably qualify for a properly sourced article, but the sourcing here doesn't even begin to approach the lower edges of acceptability. (In fact this was initially titled as a list of his documentary credits instead of a BLP of him, but a person has to have a BLP to start with before they're eligible to have a separate list of their credits created as a separate "topic" in its own right independently of a biography of the person — and sticking a biographical sketch directly into the "list of credits" article is not a way around that.) About half of the sources here fail to contain any mention whatosever of his name, merely verifying the existence of documentaries that happen to be included in the list — and even the sources which do mention Jeffcock's name anywhere at all fail to do anything more than mention his name. So not even one source here would get him over WP:GNG, and a Google News search offered up nothing that would improve the sourcing at all (it offers just eight more glancing namechecks in coverage of other things.) As always, a Wikipedia article is not a thing that a television producer automatically gets to have just because you can verify that he exists, or that things he was involved with exist; it's a thing a person earns by being the subject of RS coverage which is substantively about him, but none has been shown here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at best as my searches found a few links here and there and the BAFTA Award for 20th Century Greats would've suggested an acceptable article but there's simply nothing else and, given the current state, there would especially have to be a better article. SwisterTwister talk 20:27, 18 December 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) 01:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Carter Florence[edit]

Anna Carter Florence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable under WP:PROF or GNG. Named associate professorships do not mee tthe PROF requirements by themselves. The works are devotional,not academic. The thought section is promotional , but it could be removed if there were actual notability , This is part of a promotional campaign for faculty at this school. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now at least until a better article is available later, not much here to convince keeping yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This one seems to be a mistake to delete. "The works are devotional,not academic." is not entirely true. Preaching as Testimony (Westminster John Knox Press, 2007) is clearly academic (as are a number of the book chapters) and is reviewed in both the popular and academic press (e.g.):
    • The Christian Century[30]
    • Expository Times[31]
    • Intepretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology[32]
And the book seems to be widely discussed and cited [33],[34],[35],[36].
She seems to meet WP:Prof #1 as a fairly important current professor of homiletics. This is further evidenced by her having given the 2012 Lyman Beecher Lectures on preaching at Yale Divinity School[37], the 2015 William Self Preaching Lectures at Mercer University [38]--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Keep -- the title of Associate Professor generally requires stronger evidence than a full professor (or full + named chair) to keep. Her book has three reviews in popular and academic press as Samuel Howard notes, but only one JSTOR citation (however, it is extremely positive: [39]). Library holding of 118 for the book is on the low side for keeping on that basis. However, the Beecher lectures (a series dating back to 1870s and encompassing many of the most notable preachers in America) is a strong indication of notability. The Mercer series is not as long-established, but note that lecture series are generally a higher significance of notability than a single lecture, and there are two here. In any case, the releases for both of them would provide independent sources for the claims in the article. It's not a slam dunk by any means, but I think it leans toward keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in another AfD, I think to call this a promotional campaign is incorrect (AGF). The author of the article created 28 articles of which at least 9 (nominator) or at least 14 (my count) are notable enough to keep without AfD -- see User:Jcstanley/my articles for more discussion. I also don't see a sharp distinction between devotional and academic for a figure employed at universities attracting large interest from faculty and authors at other universities. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- That is an impressive list of publications. Preaching (or homiletics) is a significant subject in ministerial training, so that it should not be dismissed as non-academic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 05:33, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Sukhar[edit]

Ilya Sukhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Challenged PROD. Probably inadequate notability. Parse is not so famous that a confounder of the firm can be assumed to be notable. I'm not sure the Telechrunch interview is sufficient, and the rest is either about the company or insubstantial. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article may benefit from better citation and more content. Parse is a high profile acquisition for Facebook and he has appeared on stage with Mark Zuckerberg multiple times. I will add some content from his website when I have time. http://ilya.sukhar.com/talks.html & http://ilya.sukhar.com/press.html Mschmidt47 (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if needed but certainly redirect to the Parse company article for now as there's nothing explicit to suggest considerable independent notability. Notifying PRODer Citobun. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not independently notable. Lacking in WP:INDEPTH coverage in reliable secondary sources - even the Forbes reference is just a little blurb. Citobun (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about this? https://www.theinformation.com/Behind-Facebook-s-Mobile-Platform-a-Driven / http://ilya.sukhar.com/theinformation.html (no paywall) Mschmidt47 (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not solid in-depth third-party sources such as news, journals and magazines. SwisterTwister talk 08:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read up on Wikipedia's guidelines but The Information is a respected outlet in Silicon Valley run by former WSJ veterans. The writer in question is now a reporter at Bloomberg.Mschmidt47 (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another profile in Wired http://www.wired.com/2013/09/facebook-and-parse/ Mschmidt47 (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he is notable in silicon valley and among all mobile developers. These are two very large communities. I cleaned up the article somewhat and added sources that should meet the depth and reliability requirements (Wired, FastCompany). Take another look those of you who voted Delete above. Mschmidt47 (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Fast Company ref is just a passing mention. The Wired article is good and certainly constitutes significant, relatively in-depth coverage, but I am still not convinced the subject really meets the notability criteria of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. Maybe in time will receive additional in-depth coverage. Until then I still recommend deleting or redirecting to Parse. Citobun (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm new to this though. How many articles or interviews is the threshold? Or is it subjective? Mschmidt47 (talk) 18:14, 21 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum suicide and quantum immortality in fiction[edit]

Quantum suicide and quantum immortality in fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure OR since 2007 - üser:Altenmann >t 04:58, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While Quantum suicide and immortality are thought experiments in the philosophy of quantum mechanics and arguably are a kind of specialized fiction, I could find no reliable sources discussing the topic in science fiction and its literature. The article itself is a well-formed list based article, but we still need an RS for the list itself. some sort of critical review, to discern which stories belong. --Mark viking (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is a list article and fails WP:Stand alone lists in that the criteria are not objectively stated and are not backed up by reliable source(s). Which is what I think Mark viking was saying, in different words. There may be articles out there that discuss this, maybe like a guest column in Analog, a long introduction to a SF anthology, or a summary article in Locus, but I didn't find any. There may be some gem in the book Science Fiction and Philosophy: From Time Travel to Superintelligence which had a nice chapter on quantum physics and time travel (Ch. 26). but I didn't find anything directly on point. I was hopeful when I saw the title "Science Fiction: Quantum Crime Capers" from the Wall Street Journal, but it turned out to be a review of David Walton’s Superposition, a quantum immortality story not listed in the Wikipedia article. The section on "The Debate Over Thought Experiments" in "Thought Experiments" at The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy was very informative, but didn't get into science fiction. I even tried to find a publication from the "Schrödinger Sessions: Science for Science Fiction", from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland, to no avail. --Bejnar (talk) 10:43, 25 December 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. WP:SNOW. As the nominator has stated he or she has left Wikipedia, WP:SK #1 is also arguably correct as more or less a withdrawl. --joe deckertalk 05:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Quinn[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Zoë Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is irrelevant for use on the wiki, as most of its content is already in the GamerGate article. Furthermore, it is proven to be bias, and violates the rules for Biographies of Living Persons, and has poor references. Furthermore, the person in question has only one major game release, thus disqualifying her for having an entire article on the wiki. Chocolatechip65 (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are plenty of sources and the first AfD confirmed she meets notability standards and notability is not temporary. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And close early per WP:SNOWBALL. There is a game release, testimony before Congress, Crash Override, etc., as well as rumors of a movie. Ms. Quinn may not be the most important person in the world, but to my mind she is easily notable per Wikipedia guidelines. Even if we were to accept, arguendo, that the article "is proven to be bias," this is an argument for amelioration rather than deletion. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep: bad faith nomination. Subject of a New Yorker profile, congressional testimony, coverage in numerous magazines and newspapers, etc etc etc. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and ban the nominator from GamerGate-related articles until he (I assume it's a he) shows some evidence of independent thought. The second AfD was speedy mostly because it tried to nominate too much stuff at once, but the first one was also a keep and she has only become more notable since. Clear pass of WP:GNG (in-depth coverage in many highly reliable sources); notable for multiple things (game development, self-modification, being attacked, and launching an anti-harassment network). Poorly reasoned nomination statement advances many rationales that are not valid for deletion — What does "irrelevant for use" even mean? People with one game cannot be notable for other things? And "proven to be bias" [sic] is neither backed up with any actual proof nor something that should cause an article to be deleted: the proper response to biased articles is to base them more firmly on the consensus of reliable sources, something that has already long since been done here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, rather than pay particular attention to the made-up set of guidelines being pushed here. We have plenty of people with article who don't even have one major game release - George Washington, for example, or George Washington Carver. "Poor references" includes things like the New Yorker, New York Times, NBC News, and so forth. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I don't normally get myself involved in topic areas under ArbCom sanction, but I feel I should note that the nominator has apparently left Wikipedia on the grounds of this being a "Safe Space". I think it's safe to say that this nomination is not only bad-faith, but was done by one of the many, many pro-GG meatpuppets. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 04:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep WP:POINTy nom with a poor rationale. Nate • (chatter) 04:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep, for all of the above reasons. De Guerre (talk) 04:28, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The League of Nations (professional wrestling)[edit]

The League of Nations (professional wrestling) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A case of WP:TOOSOON. The stable hasn't be around long enough to establish its notability. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 03:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 December 19#Template:The League of Nations. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thank you for nominating. They fail WP:GNG as they have no enduring notability. It's possible they'll be notable someday but they're not there yet.LM2000 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Less notable groupings with no name of their own have their own article. Wether they endure cannot be said right now. However the template right now serves no purpose. Str1977 (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitly too soon.  MPJ-US  20:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Str1977's rationale is typically explained away in discussions of this type as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, if you want to go there: comparing the level of detail and number of sources in an article about an entity which has existed for less than three weeks with the multitude of topics with long-established notability which WP:PW has chosen to ignore due to the lack of easy sources, it makes it obvious that this article also partially or completely fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POVFORK and WP:RECENT. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, RadioKAOS, if you want to invoke WP:NOTNEWS for the article, then you are also arguing for the removal of Wikipedia articles for recent news events, as well arguing for not creating articles for news events until sometime after they've happened, as those would violate WP:NOTNEWS as well. I honestly don't see how the article violates WP:POVFORK. And, as far as WP:RECENT, there are many other articles besides this one that would violate WP:RECENT. Now, as far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you are then arguing that a multitude of articles on Wikipedia need to be removed, as it can be argued they exist simply because articles for similar entities exist. I would say delete the template, but retain the article. If anything, RadioKAOS, it is clear that you are out of your league (pardon the pun) here. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does nothing other than exist for short period. Kill it. Not notable.--WillC 01:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - top "bad guy" group in WWE right now. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Right now" is my sticking point, a sentiment which appears to be shared with others in this discussion. What part of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" requires further elaboration? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A League of Their Own? I love Geena Davis! Sorry, just had to. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of official stables don't have articles but had theme songs, though this one has the distinction of being the only group to have a theme named after a Penny Marshall film.LM2000 (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the. nominator never suggested that the stable was unofficial so I don't see how that is relevant.--174.91.187.180 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, given that the stable prominently features wrestlers from the British Isles, the title of the theme music is in honour of the UK TV quiz show hosted by James Corden.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. WP:TOOSOON, and Sheamus no longer being champion does nothing to help matters. Existence ≠ notability. DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough coverage for an article yet. Simply being official an shaving a theme song is not enough.--174.91.187.180 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also the existence of article for less notable stables does not prove that this should be kept since it could very well be possible that the should be deleted as well.--174.91.187.180 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article. Delete the template. There's enough sources and info for an article. As for the template, delete. --FaithLehaneTheVampireSlayer 12:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. Violates TOOSOON and GNG, with no convincing policy-based arguments for keep thus far. 90.222.115.9 (talk) 13:34, 23 December 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) 08:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lightman[edit]

Alex Lightman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person is not notable; no substantial coverage in reliable sources.

Most of the sources cited are primary (eg. Lightman's book), make no obvious reference to Lightman (eg. this magazine homepage), or are press releases/clearly not reliable (eg. here).

There are a few reliable, secondary sources cited, but they merely quote Lightman and are not about him, and therefore give little-to-no information on Lightman himself. (See WP:PSEUDO.) Many also have other problems. Eg.:

  • This page, which summarizes a talk Lightman gave, links to his Wikipedia bio in the first sentence. Obviously, a source which itself relies on Wikipedia can't be a reliable source for Wikipedia. See citogenesis.
  • This BI article, from late 2014, cites Lightman as the "executive director" of Humanity+. At the time of writing, that hadn't been true for four years. Lightman resigned from his position at Humanity+ in summer 2010 (cite).
  • This article, when quoting Lightman, refers to him as "founder of Humanity+". This is incorrect; Lightman had nothing to do with the founding of Humanity+, which happened in 1998 (cite). Lightman was first appointed as executive director in 2009, over a decade afterward (cite). Spectra239 (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands - it is possible he's noteworthy, but the lack of RSes, massive use of primary sources, incorrect primary sources (as you note) and uncited claims make this completely unsuitable to keep as a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks enough reliable sources to show noteability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seemingly obvious this article is, not currently or perhaps anytime soon, showing even the minimalist signs of better notability and improvement especially given the current sources. WP:TNT at best for a newer better article. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 24 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Carroll[edit]

Leon Carroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of notability by WP:PROF, GNG or AUTHOR. Promotional article, part of a promotional campaign. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All this seems fitting for AfD considering WP:PROF, draft and userfy later if needed as I'm not seeing anything outstanding to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not sufficient publications or awards for WP:PROF, no other coverage. However, I do not see this as part of a promotional campaign (AGF). The author of the article created 28 articles of which at least 9 (nominator) or at least 14 (my count) are notable enough to not warrant AfD -- see User:Jcstanley/my articles for more discussion. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- While his books are few in number, they look as if they might be quite significant in dealing with internal church administration and discipline. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandaveer[edit]

Vandaveer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage cited, just directory listings and a blog review. Of news sources, I found a non-local one[40] (DC area and Louisville/Lexingon would be more local and I found those too). Not really what I'd consider enough to meet WP:BAND. Happy to withdraw this nomination if judged notable. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Advanced Studies in Interaction Design (MAIND), SUPSI[edit]

Master of Advanced Studies in Interaction Design (MAIND), SUPSI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Suggesting that this be deleted outright or redirected to SUPSI.

Very little substantive, in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources on search engines/Google News/Google Newspaper Archive/Books about this program. For instance, there are lots of blurbs like this that demonstrate the program's existence, but they are not particularly substantial in nature. Most discussion of the program comes from SUPSI itself or from a source partnered with it This and this do not, in my opinion, constitute significant enough coverage to meet organizational notability requirements or the general notability guideline.

My searches revealed no hits on Highbeam or JSTOR. Perhaps there is coverage in German? /wia🎄/tlk 00:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Cities Rail Transport[edit]

Twin Cities Rail Transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicates existing METRO (Minnesota) and Twin City Rapid Transit Company articles without adding any additional info. Nsteffel (talk) 00:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is apparently intended as an "overview article" for the topic but, as the nom notes, it does not add any significant value to the topic beyond that in its "child articles". - The Bushranger One ping only 17:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we have this material sufficiently covered in other articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 24 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cambio (game)[edit]

Cambio (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Card game sourced only to a Reddit post. I haven't been able to find any stronger sources for it. From the few websites that mention Cambio, it sounds like a folk version of the commercial card game Cabo (game), although it's unclear whether the designer of Cabo ripped off a backpacker game, or backpackers learned to play Cabo with a standard deck. McGeddon (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. India Singh (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:06, 17 December 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. No consensus to delete - closed without prejudice to renomination if the article is not improved within a reasonable timeframe.  Philg88 ♦talk 08:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh[edit]

Bharatiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reliable, secondary coverage of this topic. I was thinking of boldly redirecting it to the page of the parent organization, but figured I'd do it via AfD so that it doesn't get recreated without sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. India Singh (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Trade unions are generally notable. This looks to be a pretty large one and has been around for nearly fifty years. Given its website is in Hindi it may be a good idea to do a search in that language. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trade unions in general might be notable, but we already have an article on the parent organization; Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh. Does the subsidiary require a separate page? I would say not. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be more of an autonomous union within a confederation than a simple subsidiary, so yes, I think it does deserve its own article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, seems to pass WP:SIGNIFICANCE, although barely. The number of English-language sources is very low: [41], [42], and perhaps [43] (mere acknowledgement of existence). Might be more important for hi-wiki. kashmiri TALK 00:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now only if it can be considerably better improved and, if not, nominate again for AfD attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:SwisterTwister, that is a very big "if." I didn't nominate this on a whim; a lot of my editing has been on South Asian political organizations. I searched quite a bit for coverage, and then sent it here when I found none. If you can give me some suggestions as to how improvements can be made, I will gladly withdraw the nom and make the improvements myself, since consensus here is tending towards keeping. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:14, 17 December 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chamb and Dogra[edit]

Battle of Chamb and Dogra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is another unsourced and non-notable battle which fails basic WP:GNG. There is no reliable source on google books, some passing mentions of these places don't deserve separate article. Human3015TALK  22:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015TALK  22:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as nonverifiable. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is original research, if it was any notable it should have contained a few references or potential sources. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- As per nomination. — Sanskari Hangout 14:41, 24 December 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) 09:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Towers[edit]

Inside Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. One edit summary says "added a secondary source to appease the general notability guideline" but it doesn't even do that. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   23:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in a couple reliable sources, thus not notable. Meatsgains (talk) 18:28, 17 December 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 Miss Wyoming USA. Spartaz Humbug! 11:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Allen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Holly Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All we really know about her is she won a state level contest for looking good. Classic case for WP:15MOF. Does not meet WP:NMODEL. Even setting aside her lack of notability for Wikipedia, per WP:NOPAGE this information is best presented in context on a list at Miss Wyoming USA. Delete and redirect.

Another issue with the article is that the creator is evidently the subject (Hallen6) who only edited this article and the related one for the pageant title, including introducing copyvio twice. In a previous AfD User:Ravenswing noted that the three personal shots in the article were all submitted by Hallen6, and one of them -- File:Holly Allen, 2011.jpg -- has under Source "My camera," and under Author, "Holly Allen." Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: My objections are unchanged from February, except in so far as that there were two citations that were fleeting bulletpoint reports explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE, now there are five. The only source that goes for more than two paragraphs is this "county10.com," which now seems to be a broken link. Obvious fail of NMODEL, and no evidence the subject meets the GNG. (No objection, though, to a redirect to Miss Wyoming USA.) Ravenswing 07:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as her notability is for winning the state title and notability is not temporary. Subject crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds with coverage in reliable third-party sources. Notability is a threshold, not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the article? Legacypac (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's a stub in need of expansion. That's never a rationale for deletion. Also, these competitions are not a "contest for looking good" any more than the acting Oscars are won by "talking pretty in a costume" or the Pulitzer by "typing real nice". Your misunderstanding of WP:NOPAGE is profound. - Dravecky (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind linking to the guideline explicitly according notability to state pageant winners, especially given that there's no presumptive notability granted to the state pageant winners of the far more notable Miss America pageant? It'd also be nice if you could link to any reliable, independent third-party sources that provide the subject the "significant coverage" the GNG requires, none of the sources in the article being anything of the sort:
  • First source [44] is a blog post on the website of the local radio station, the sum total of which is "Tomorrow (Saturday) is the Miss Wyoming send off event in Lander. Holly Allen of Lander will be traveling to Las Vegas soon for the Miss U.S.A. pageant and she is raising money for her trip. Tomorrow afternoon from 4pm to 8pm. The Museum of the American West will be hosting a County Cook out dinner for $10. Proceeds will help Allen get to Las Vegas for the competition." Even if it wasn't obviously the station's local events blog, this is a news blip explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE.
  • Second source [45], again from a local radio station's website, is obviously a (brief) press release; the same text is repeated on the first source's blog, and the repeated "Miss Wyoming USA®" and "Miss Wyoming Teen USA®" snips, complete with trademark symbols, is a dead giveaway.
  • Third source [46] comes the closest to substantive content (a whole eleven sentences), if we had any idea what "county10.com" was (the site lacks any info on that whatsoever, and it seems to be no longer updated), or its qualifications to being a reliable, substantive source.
  • Fourth source [47] is another fleeting press release, this one from the Lander Chamber of Commerce.
  • The final source [48] is again from county10.com, and is in fact about the subject's sister (the subject herself is mentioned only in a single sentence).
  • Beyond that, there's bupkis. "Holly Allen" + Wyoming turns up nothing on Highbeam, nothing on newspapers.com, nothing on the Google Newspapers feature, and the only substantive hit on Google News is a picture-studded Daily Mail article on the Miss USA pageant winner where Allen is mentioned in the photo caption in one of the group pictures.

    This is exactly the situation that NOPAGE was designed to cover, given that Allen's only apparent claim to prominence is having won this state pageant, there's no significant sourced biographical information beyond the standard date/parents/high school/hometown info available about damn near every living person in the United States, and lo and behold, there's an appropriate redirect target. Ravenswing 13:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why this subject be any less notable than it was when brought to AfD by the same nominator with the same basic reasoning just 10 months ago, when it survived AfD? Notability is not temporary. Is nominating the same article for deletion repeatedly respectful treatment of the editors at AfD and the entire AfD Process? Jacona (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are not debating notability, we are talking about following WP:NOPAGE which assumes notablity. Some people object to these bios being turned into redirects so we use AfD. Reread the basis of the nomination. Legacypac (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are revisited all the time, and not just due to procedural errors. Indeed, you're right: notability is not temporary, which is why it's important to establish it in the first place. I'll ask you the same questions I asked Dravecky: what guidelines establishing presumptive notability do you claim explicitly apply to this subject, and what sources (and why) do you claim are the multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources with an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy that provide "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires to establish notability? Ravenswing 03:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ask you the same question as I did Dravecky and Jacona, seeing as they're declining to answer: what sources (and why) do you claim are the multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources with an established reputation for fact checking and accuracy that provide "significant coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires to establish notability? Ravenswing 04:03, 22 December 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. He is likely notable though, and the article can be recreated if reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mugdim Avdić Henda[edit]

Mugdim Avdić Henda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert R. Peacock[edit]

Robert R. Peacock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography, sourced entirely to raw tables of election results but for a single news article in which he's a namecheck and not the subject, of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL — if you cannot make a credible and properly sourced claim that the topic was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before they became a candidate, then they do not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until they win the election. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never won any elections, no sources except for election statistics.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 25 December 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. ^ Weil, Sabrina Sexton (1999-03-20). "Lunar Magazine: Liquified Planet". Lunar Magazine.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_December_17&oldid=1142626447"