Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 June	21 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Closing this AfD on behalf of the nominator, who withdrew the nomination. Schwede 66 05:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rongowhakaata Pere Halbert[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable individual. Quis separabit? 00:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW NOMINATION in light of other editors' consensus and SNOW.Quis separabit? 00:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per consensus for people who're in DNZB. Should the consensus not be keep could the closing admin please contact me and I'll merge to Dictionary_of_New_Zealand_Biography#Representative_entries. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per entry for this significant Maori administrator and advisor in Dictionary of New Zealand Biography and mentions in other historical papers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Rongowhakaata Halbert as that is the name he published as and most often referred to as. I've added the book he wrote. A search in Index New Zealand found a number of significant articles on him in print only from the Gisborne Herald, Mana (national Maori news magazine), Turanganui a Kiwa pipiwharauroahe, and Bay of Plenty journal of history. The headline of the Herald book review is "One of centuries (century's) major tribal histories launched". He's also mentioned a few times in Wiremu Pere: The Life and Times of a Maori Leader, 1873-1915. I think DNZB should be enough to demonstrate notability as he is clearly not one of the "representative entries". -- haminoon (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll happily take the blame for getting the article title wrong when creating the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Meets notability hands down, as is clearly demonstrated by his DNZB entry. Might as well close this discussion now as the case is clear cut. By the way, I've moved the article. Schwede 66 00:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Schwede, further discussion is pointless NealeFamily (talk) 00:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dev Purush Ghosh[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so does not meet WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, my first searches immediately found no good sources and, from my English perspective, I'm simply not seeing anything to improve this. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks both sources and context. I can't even find any source indepdent of Wikipedia that mentions Ghosh.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 22 June 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. Davewild (talk) 07:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Talib Raheem[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP: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) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Hi can you see arabic page :) [[1]] ,, arabic name is فهد طالب رحيم

Kurdistantolive (talk) 00:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onowu Anyasodike[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:POLITICIAN. He is a leader of a non-notable local group. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim here satisfies WP:NPOL (serving on committees is not enough) — and the referencing is almost entirely to primary sources and cursory namechecks of his existence, with not nearly enough sourcing that's substantively about him to claim WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source in the article of any substantial depth is the nubnews24 one. It appears to be self-published. I couldn't find it on any list of Nigerian media. The byline for every article is ndukwe uche, and on the left is an "About Me" navigation for the same. The website was first registered earlier this year to an organization called Students Nigeria. Punch is a reliable source, as I think is Scan News. However, outside of a couple of primary source direct quotes, put together they contain less than 200 words about the subject, basically just that he is the leader of the group Non-Indigenes Without Border. The other two sources are mere directory-type listings saying that the subject is on the Governor's inauguration committee.

Searches by article title and by the name Emeka Onowu, including direct searches of a dozen Port Harcourt and nationwide Nigerian news archives, turned up no additional sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Worldbruce (talk) 07:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Agarwal[edit]

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

I could only find one source on google that could be used in the article. I dream of horses (T) @ 22:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Apart from a journalist complaining about the subject's salary, I can't find any significant coverage, but there are a lot of mentions and two-sentence details on the subject, which may indicate notability. Esquivalience ^t 23:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources. The one source offered is clearly primary and unhelpful. Msnicki (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. No indication of importance. --Anar chyte 04:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. May be overkill, but I've bio-prodded too, Linkedin obviously isn't RS Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious autobiography, and appears to fail WP:GNG. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:09, 25 June 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 Gaston County Schools#Elementary schools.

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brookside Elementary School (Gaston County)[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article on an elementary school. I dream of horses (T) @ 21:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant school district, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gaston County Schools#Elementary schools. Also change Template:Gaston County Schools to remove all the links to elementary schools. —teb728 t c 00:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ~ Rob^Talk 05:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gaston County Schools#Elementary schools per TEB728. Significant RS coverage not found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 21 June 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. G4 speedy delete looks valid here and no new evidence to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Knobel[edit]

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

Per the first deletion discussion, both subject and subject's published works are non-notable. Could an admin check and see if this page is eligible for WP:G4? --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Knobel hasn't become any more notable since the last AFD was closed 3 weeks ago. -- haminoon (talk) 20:55, 21 June 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. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tongaat mall collapse[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news. I dream of horses (T) @ 21:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm actually of the opinion that the subject could warrant an article. However, this article is entirely non-sourced, draws its own conclusions, etc. There is nothing to be salvaged here. --Non-Dropframe _talk 21:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William 09:57, 24 June 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 The Blaze#Personalities. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines but an appropriate redirect has been supported. Davewild (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Hallowell[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist just doing his job. No significant independent coverage about him or his publications. The provided references fail to establish notability. GermanJoe (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe move to The Blaze#Personalities where he is mentioned - My searches of "Billy Hallowell journalist" at News, Books, browser and highbeam returned results but nothing significant so there's nothing to suggest solid independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems somewhat self-promotional. Isn't writing some articles and interviewing some people what journalists are supposed to do? Nothing suggests WP:JOURNALIST notability.--Rpclod (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TheBlaze#Notable personalities (with the history preserved under the redirect) per SwisterTwister in lieu of deletion. I was unable to find substantial coverage about the subject to allow him to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Preserving the history will allow the redirect to be easily undone if editors in the future find more sources about the subject that could be used to source and expand the article significantly.
Cunard (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Matriarch Agency[edit]

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

Article about non-notable agency (with possible COI problems). Google searches came up almost empty, just a few passing mentions. GermanJoe (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A good PROD candidate. CorporateM (Talk) 02:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A management company, and a small one without notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no immediate good sources and this isn't surprising for a company that was founded recently in 2009. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 22 June 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 speedily deleted as A9. Page speedily deleted by RHaworth with a rationale A9: Non-notable music by artist without a Wikipedia article (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 08:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ELEKTRICKÁ GITARA[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no citations Antrocent (♫♬) 17:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to indicate that this is a notable work, so fails to pass WP:NALBUMS.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Attila Tverďák seems to be a notable artist (guitarist and painter) in Slovakia,[2] [3] and Hevhetia Records is a notable music recording company. Other notable artists such as Peter Machajdík have contributed with compositions to the album.[4]. I think that the best option for us would be to create an article about him, mention the album in it and redirect/merge Elektrická gitara into it. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:34, 22 June 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 as A7 by MelanieN. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cine Report[edit]

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

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

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

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

Notability not established Krimuk|90 (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - totally notable and the article justifies its existence, might need expansion though. GreenTalk 16:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RishabhReporter (talk • contribs)

Keep - enough references available. MakingTree (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC) — MakingTree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Delete~~Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: no indication of significance. The only thing that even comes close to an indication is an Alexa rank, and that is only for India (globally, the rank is >#150,000). Esquivalience ^t 16:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article depicts a site which is reliable for use as per our guidelines, but reliability does not automatically bestow notability. The site has been latched on to passing mentions in tons of reputed websites which have also used their reports directly or indirectly, but notability demands that significant coverage and some material about the site in third-party sources is necessary. I doubt if these are competent enough to contain the article and on par with WP:WEB. From what I can comprehend, this is a case of WP:BARE where the article just seems on border between notability and non-notability, making its contingency inconceivable beyond WP:TWOPRONGS. But again, what is competent and what is not is again subjective. If more sources could be found, the article's stance would escalate, but until then, it remains as a mere paradigm of bare notability.Khadeerali (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide links to the "tons of reputed websites" in which CineReport is mentioned? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that notability requires verifiable evidence and merely stating that unspecified sources exist is not convincing, especially when there is no indication of significance that can signal the possibility of sources. Esquivalience ^t 18:14, 20 June 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe Charbonnier[edit]

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

Thi has been tagged for notability since 2006. It has some coverage, and a French-language article, but I couldn't establish that he definitely meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he is notable [5], [6], [7], [8] 103.27.227.107 (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Charbonnier article certainly needs expansion and more thorough referencing, a task with which I will assist. Jean‐Philippe Charbonnier was a significant French photojournalist and a senior staffer at Réalités, which ranks him alongside Henri Cartier-Bresson and other mid-century photography greats, and continued a long career during which his documentation of events in France and internationally forms an invaluable historical record (included in the Biblioteque Nationale and elsewhere. His bio is included on the World Health Organisation site[9] (for whom he worked in the 1960s), and also on the World Press Photo site[10]. His work was chosen by Edward Steichen for The Family of Man exhibition seen worldwide by more than 9 million people. There is an article on him in the French Wikipedia, but his contribution to photojournalism is of importance also to English-speakers that warrants inclusion here.

His work continues to be collected and recognised with solo exhibitions, and inclusion in many important group shows, the most recent (see:[http://www.photography-now.com/artist/jean-philippe-charbonnier]) have been:

Solo exhibitions of Jean-Philippe Charbonnier:

Galerie Agathe Gaillard, France

C'est quoi etre jeune?

Jean-Philippe Charbonnier

1 Mar – 30 Apr 2011

Galerie Agathe Gaillard, France

Autour de "L'Enfant Flou"

Jean-Philippe Charbonnier

28 Oct – 4 Dec 2010

le bleu du ciel, France

HP Hôpital Psychiatrique - Rétrospective

Jean-Philippe Charbonnier

9 Nov – 16 Dec 2006

in focus Galerie, Germany

Retrospektive. 50 Jahre Fotografie

Jean-Philippe Charbonnier

25 Apr – 25 Jul 2003

La Galerie de La Filature, France

Rétrospective historique

Jean-Philippe Charbonnier

2 Apr – 25 May 2003

Cara Gosselin[edit]

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

This title has existed for six years as a redirect to Kate Plus 8, until being converted into a standalone article about Cara within the past 24 hours — however, the problem is that the standalone article makes no genuinely substantive claim that Cara is notable in her own right for anything except existing. And right across the board, the sourcing just namechecks her existence in the process of being about her mother or the show rather than substantively about her. Notability is not inherited, so she doesn't qualify for a standalone article just because her mom and dad have standalone articles — to make her eligible for an article, she would have to be able to make a much stronger claim of notability than has been attempted here. Delete or revert to redirect. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore to redirect WP:N not met and the sources we have on the article (sourcing the subject's ethnicity with a HuffPost story going on about her mom's ill-advised Twitter photo, Today fluff and a story from Hollywood Life, which is just a blogger 'type-what-I-seeing' and opining about an interview) are unacceptable. Nate • (chatter) 08:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore to redirect as per Bearcat & above. Not seeing sufficient signs that CG is a subject in her own right.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Return to redirect None of Gosselin's actions make her indepdently notable, just part of her family. She is still a minor, and I think we should avoid being part of the media exploitation of her existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore to redirect; is each Gosselin kid going to get his or her own page because their mother is a publicity hound? Quis separabit? 03:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra panchal[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable theater actor. The sources in the article are about plays that he acted in rather than about him specifically, thus not counting as significant coverage. My earlier PROD with a similar rationale to this one was removed by an IP. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Jbh ^Talk 11:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Included references are blogs. As a biographical target, he fails the notability standard. The article naming is, once more, for a person without a capital letter for his last name. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My first searches immediately found nothing good so there's nothing to outstandingly say this subject is notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bears all the hallmarks of a vanity page with not enough coverage in RS.Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 22 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pressing On: Songs inspired by the Journeys of Paul[edit]

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

Non notable album, apart from release notes there is nothing to support notability Flat Out (talk) 11:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each of the artists have references to their works within Wikipedia. However, this album is missing from their listings. I have added the page to the publisher's page for this album Do not delete as it is a missing piece in the Discology of the various artist involved. Rbatzing (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please read WP:NALBUM as this recording is not notable. Flat Out (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The simplest solution to the dilemma in the comments above is to not redlink the album. Articles can easily contain information without mandating new and separate articles on albums. This record does not appear to pass notability guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the album does not appear to pass GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:24, 24 June 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) –Davey2010^Talk 23:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

WP:REDUNDANT and WP:POVFORK to List of attacks attributed to the LTTE (and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam , Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna etc). This article has become a crude attempt to recreate List of civilian massacres attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam which was deleted recently following an Afd. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 10:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator to concentrate on the Afd for Terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka. I will however resurrect this Afd if any attempt is made to include this list in Terrorism in Sri Lanka.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 06:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are many such articles for every country and a category Terrorism by country KiwikiKiWi (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Terrorism is an notable issue in Sri Lanka, however remove the list. There are enough lists on attacks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 23:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The creator of this article has moved some of the redundant content to another article, Terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka, in order to frustrate this Afd.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest you close this afd and focus on that one. This article has more legitimate grounds to be kept from deletion after its recent edits, however I don't think the other one does--Blackknight12 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there many "Terrorism in (country)" and "(List of) terrorist attacks in (country)" . Seems like Sri Lanka has had plenty. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An appropriate typical wp rs-covered intersection. Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 23 June 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 A Broken Frame. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Have Done That[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG and is unlikely to ever be more than a stub. Not every recorded track meets the NSONG criteria for notability Flat Out (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

Note: Other AfDs for similar articles made under the same circumstances exist. Here is the list so far:

--DanielRigal (talk) 10:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A Broken Frame. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Redirect Flat Out (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redirects are cheap, so redirecting to the album is possible, but a redirect is likely useless, too, in a case like this. Nothing is gained by keeping (there isn't unique information), and the song is not notable. (Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands, it ain't.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 21 June 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 A Broken Frame. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Secret Garden (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG and is unlikely to ever be more than a stub. Not every recorded track meets the NSONG criteria for notability Flat Out (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Other AfDs for similar articles made under the same circumstances exist. Here is the list so far:

Is there any way we can combine these? In the meantime, I'll put Prod on other similar articles to avoid making too many AfDs. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Broken Frame. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Redirect Flat Out (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redirects are cheap, so redirecting to the album is possible, but a redirect is likely useless, too, in a case like this. Nothing is gained by keeping (there isn't unique information), and the song is not notable. (Shipbuilding (song), it ain't.) Hithladaeus (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album "A Broken Frame" .Pincrete (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pincrete: where do you want to redirect the article? Do you mean a redirect to "A Broken Frame"? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:23, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, yes apologies for not making clear.Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pincrete, you may want to read WP:Indentation. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, you may want to read this.Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of why you pointed me to such an irrelevant article but assume good faith. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 19:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to A Broken Frame. Not notable in it's own right, but a plausible search term for the album. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not to be confused with Safe In My Garden. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 30 June 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 Speak & Spell (album). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tora! Tora! Tora! (song)[edit]

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

Fails the criteria for notability according to WP:NSONGS, which says:

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Would :Support Redirect to the album. Flat Out (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We want articles on singles and albums with chart positions and professional reviews and/or other RS coverage. Generally we don't want articles on album tracks and B sides. There will be exceptions for a very few individually notable album tracks but there is nothing to indicate that this, or the others that the author is creating, fall into that category. I fear that what we have here is a new and inexperienced editor who has misunderstood the inclusion criteria. We should try to put him right without destroying his enthusiasm for editing. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Other AfDs for similar articles made under the same circumstances exist. Here is the list so far:

Is there any way we can combine these? In the meantime, I'll put Prod on other similar articles to avoid making too many AfDs. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete per G5 as a page created by a blocked user (User:Igorro 666) in violation of his or her block, with no substantial edits by others. I'm going to boldly flag this and any other ones created by the same user for speedy deletion per the same criterion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Redirect to Speak Spell. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the G5 request. Unless I'm missing some history, this article was not created while the editor in question was blocked. Kuru (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Kuru! After another look, I discovered the user had created the pages before they were blocked. Thanks for letting me know. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redirects are cheap, so redirecting to the album is possible, but a redirect is likely useless, too, in a case like this. Nothing is gained by keeping (there isn't unique information), and the song is not notable. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speak & Spell (album). Not notable, but a plausible search term for the album. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 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 Deleted (G5) by Sergecross73 –Davey2010^Talk 18:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's Your Name? (Depeche Mode song)[edit]

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

Fails the criteria for notability according to WP:NSONGS

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Flat Out (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Other AfDs for similar articles made under the same circumstances exist. Here is the list so far:

Is there any way we can combine these? In the meantime, I'll put Prod on other similar articles to avoid making too many AfDs. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 13:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G5 as a page created by a blocked user (User:Igorro 666) in violation of his or her block, with no substantial edits by others. I'm going to boldly flag this and any other ones created by the same user for speedy deletion per the same criterion. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 13:57, 20 June 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 Speak & Spell (album). (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Say Go![edit]

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

Fails the criteria for notability according to WP:NSONGS

Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria.

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups. Flat Out (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Other AfDs for similar articles made under the same circumstances exist. Here is the list so far:

Is there any way we can combine these? In the meantime, I'll put Prod on other similar articles to avoid making too many AfDs. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speak Spell. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 22:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Redirect Flat Out (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Speak & Spell. Not notable on it's own, but plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per WP:BROADCAST ("Radio stations") and WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bay FM Exmouth[edit]

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

This article was deleted as a result of discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bay FM Exmouth in 2010. Following representations from an editor who appeared to have a conflict of interest, the deleting administrator userfied the article, which was then edited, and the deleting administrator decided that the changes were enough to justify overturning the unambiguous consensus at the deletion discussion. I disagree. The subject is a very minor local "community" radio station, and there is nothing in the article to indicate notability in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Five of the fourteen sources are dead links, and the rest are things such as a news announcement that the radio station had been given a broadcasting license, similar announcements that it had received a license, an announcement that it was moving to new premises, a local news report that the station had asked the local council for some money, and a letter from the Chair of the radio station's Steering Committee to the local newspaper, expressing displeasure with the way that last item was reported. None of these sources could remotely be considered to constitute the sort of substantial coverage that is required to show notability under Wikipedia's standards. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment I find it difficult to assess the long and I want to ask a question. How many people are listening this radio? Whether it is possible to evaluate in any way by this parameter? Do popularity ratings of private radio stations? Shad Innet (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- While it follows a certain logic that more listeners = more notability, the core of what we're really looking for is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources that we can build an article with. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - How to evaluate the significance of the radio? It seems that there are several criteria - for its price, by the accessories to the governmental organizations or fame, and that is popular among the audience. Do you have any other criteria?Shad Innet (talk) 09:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the situation does appear to have changed since 2010, as they're no longer restricted-licence anymore and now broadcast regularly. Other than that, I don't see a lot of new notability or coverage vy reliable sources, but I'll happily change my vote if more show up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, as long as a radio station's article is reliably sourced, it doesn't have to make any special claim of notability beyond the fact of existing as a licensed radio station — it doesn't have to be especially well-known beyond its local area (or even all that well known in its own local area), or have any particular size of audience, or anything else that would single it out as any sort of special case among radio stations. All a radio station's article needs to do to get kept is be properly sourced. That said, this absolutely isn't adequately sourced, so I have to go with the delete — but if the article were properly sourced, and thus satisfied WP:GNG, then under WP:NMEDIA it wouldn't have to make any claim of notability more substantial than it already does, so no prejudice against recreation if better sources can be provided. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article contains more than sufficient in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A licensed over-the-air station, verified by reliable sources and some newspaper coverage as well. This is a keep per WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Phillips (author)[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources actually discussing the subject to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. To be notable as an author of non-fiction books requires reviews. I found one review, in People Management magazine.[12] That's not enough. No evidence that he's widely considered an expert or has received other significant media coverage. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've deleted a LOT of the article and the original version can be seen here. The prior version was clearly written by a paid/COI editor sent here to promote Phillips and to be honest, I'd have endorsed a speedy deletion of the prior version as unambiguous promotion. I'll see if I can find anything since there is somewhat of an assertion of notability here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried searching and other than a review for his 2014 book, there's just nothing out there about this guy. Two reviews aren't enough to show a true depth of coverage or to prove that this guy would pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm kind of getting some serious paid editing vibes from this. I'm also somewhat leery of the fact that this same editor has tried to recreate Jonathan Gabay in the mainspace along with several other editors, which gives off the impression that they're editing on behalf of a marketing company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - it looks like this is a concentrated effort by a group of people to create articles for authors that have published via Kogan Page or London Wall Publishing. I've opened up an SPI here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My sweeps did not reveal much. Problem is, Simon Phillips is a somewhat common name in Britain and it is hard filtering out all the other Simon Phillips es, such as the director, the tutor, the drummer, etc etc. Looks like his book on Amazon has not had any customer reviews -- I know, not an official sign, but for me an indication of a lack of notability. Agree with Tokyogirl79s concerns about SPI or paid editing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:51, 27 June 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. Don't usually close those I've !voted in but the outcomes obvious, No point dragging the AFD on. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Girls High School[edit]

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

No citations to show that it is Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES describes the long-standing working consensus that secondary schools are usually notable unless a hoax is involved, or it is a home school. I found recent significant coverage in a reliable, independent source here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from "SCHOOLOUTCOMES", this really is a notable school. It was the first secondary school for African girls in Kenya. It has national importance as a "center of excellence" for education in that country with many notable alumni. I've added multiple references from secondary sources to that effect. It does need a good copyedit, though. I've done a bit, but it needs further "puff removal". Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting and de-pufferizing completed now. Voceditenore (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and per outcomes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:54, 22 June 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 speedied by Bbb23 per G5. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk 16:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Semenikhin[edit]

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

Nominating for the same reasons as I did in the previous AfD (located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri Semenikhin). Though the article has apparently changed enough to survive WP:G4, it seems to still suffer from the same problems. It seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. The article's sources are mainly primary sources and a couple of passing mentions. My searches came up with little more. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject here. Apparition¹¹ ^Complaints/Mistakes 04:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Startools[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and relying on a single source for referencing. Also WP:COI, as it was originally created by an editor whose username matches the name of one of the band members. Original AFD in 2006 was kept on the basis that it failed NMUSIC but made other "interesting" claims that were worth keeping anyway — but there's a difference between "interesting" claims and encyclopedic claims, and it's the latter, not the former, that gets a band into Wikipedia. (And also, we're just generally a lot less forgiving of articles that make no real claim of notability in 2015 than we were ten years ago when our notability rules were still being made up and refined as we went along.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because all my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no good results aside from this. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator. I do see there were some trivial mentions brought up in the first nomination, but to me, there's barely any coverage or anything notable about this group that warrants a page. Almost certainly a WP:PERMASTUB. mikeman67 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 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 as copyvio. Per my comments below, this is ultimately an attempt to re-create a frequently speedied article under a new name. However even without that, this looks to be a clear case of WP:TOOSOON since this essentially seems to be an article based on a paper on a new proposal that has yet to really gain any true traction in the academic world. It's sort of a clear WP:NOT violation for several reasons (not promotion, not repository for original thought, etc.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FCBoost[edit]

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

Non-notable academic proposal. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm opening up an SPI since there seems to be some meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry going on here. The basic gist is that it looks like a group of scientists are trying to add their work to Wikipedia, either by uploading the papers themselves or by creating pages about the work. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also speedy this as a copyright violation. This is pretty much the same editors (who are now blocked) trying to recreate Boosting Algorithms for Detector Cascade Learning under a new title in the hopes of evading detection. The original article contained a copyright violation since it was a paraphrase of this paper and this article is a carbon copy of the copyvio version of the original article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 20 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madura English-Sinhala Dictionary[edit]

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

this software product doesn't seem to meet GNG/corp depth _nonsense ferret 15:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see significant coverage in a variety of sources that appear to be independent and reliable. These sources are already cited in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable dictionary. Maduwanwela (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Davewild (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwamitra Gokel[edit]

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

I could've PRODded this but I always like to leave it open for commenting. All my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no good sources and there isn't even an IMDb. Granted, some of these films are from the 1970s and '80s so sources be non-English and offline but it's likely this is not notable. Furthermore, I simply can't find good sources to add or confirm the article's current information thus the article's current state is unacceptable. SwisterTwister talk 21:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not finding anything and I'm wondering if that is his correct last name. He's credited only as Vishwamitra here but under that profile he only has three credits. —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the low amount of sources, nothing is certain for the last name but it is common for people to use one name and it's very common for IMDb to only list a few credits for people from these countries. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but looks like he's also this IMDB entry too. Hopefully someone with knowledge of Bollywood can tell us if he's really notable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Diamond (theatre)[edit]

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

Declined AfC draft which was then moved as if accepted, but incorrectly to WP: space. Still not notable with refs in particular very lacking. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reslited rather than softdelete because I suspect SD would be immediately contested, can we try for a result here, folks? j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Undeniably a provincial figure in the arts. Drawing an analogy to a US state or a UK region may be misleading. His book publication is hard to assess. The sources verify the claims in the article: a significant figure in political drama in a major city in a province in Canada. Is any of this sufficient for passing the notability standard? I'm softer on artists than others, so I take no position. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: I'll go ahead and be soft on this. My reasoning is that, even though he seems to be a large voice in a single city, that single city dominates a wide section of Canada, so there is a kind of relativity, here. In Dallas or Seattle there might be eight comparable voices, diluting the notability, but he has had a long career of some note in a theater scene. There was never a question of verification. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm seeing enough major coverage to pass WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 20 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magging[edit]

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

This has been speedy deleted in 2007 as a neologism, but I lack the expertise to know if this is still the case. However, Google doesn't look promising. I dream of horses (T) @ 01:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magging is an Aussie word for talking, chatting. Also using a magnetometer.[13] I have never heard of this usage! delete Alec Station (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NEO; unable to find sources establishing notability. APerson (talk!) 18:24, 22 June 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 American Epic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lo-Max Films[edit]

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

Declined A7, on the enirely fatuous and ill-informed grounds that "since when has ANY article citing the New York Times been an A7?". The cite in question may establish the notability of the product of this company notable, but not the company itself, which has hardly done anything.TheLongTone (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely untrue that Lo-Max Films "has hardly done anything". Lo-Max Films is the film company producing American Epic, a series of documentary films to be broadcast by PBS in the US and by the BBC in the UK, which are executive-produced by T Bone Burnett, Robert Redford, and Jack White. These are all notable organizations and people, and Lo-Max Films is mentioned independently by press reports cited in the References. Gold6789 (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)Gold6789 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:TOOSOON TheLongTone (talk) 13:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The NYT sources does not mention the article-subject. The others are trivial mentions. Notability is not inherited. We are not in a position to evaluate the article-subject's significance, only whether the source material has done so and they have not. CorporateM (Talk) 07:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Epic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to American Epic as suggested above with my searches (News, Books, highbeam and thefreelibrary) finding nothing to suggest independent notability aside from one mention here. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Available sources speaking about Lo-Max all speak more about its relationship with American Epic, and less about Lo-Max as a production company. Heck, even the article itself tells us "The company is producing a series of four music films under the banner of American Epic". So while it might be spoken of and sourced within the articles on American Epic and those of its founders Allison McGourty, Bernard MacMahon, and Duke Erikson, it does not have enough independent notability for a separate article just yet. TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I'm fine with a redirect to American Epic TheLongTone (talk) 13:09, 26 June 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) JAaron95 (Talk) 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Granier[edit]

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

PROD contested without reason. Appears to fail the general notability guidelines, as all the sources and EL in the article all are primary or shop sources, with no real articles about the author. A Google search mainly reveals boilerplate author biog, and nothing about them. Mdann52 (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources are referenced to support any of the claims.--Rpclod (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read the GNG and I am still uncertain as to what constitutes 'real articles' about an author. Do reviews not count? And what are 'shop sources'? Is it a requirement that every author needs to have feature articles written about him/her to be considered notable? Markgranier1 (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main reasons given for this deletion are: (1) that 'the EL in the articles are all 'boilerplate' and 'primary or shop sources' and (2) it 'fails general notability guidelines' (GNG) This seems strange, as one of the searches (in High Beam Research) listed by the editors themselves turns up two reviews of my books in an established newspaper, The Irish Times. There are other reviews listed on my current publisher (Salmon Poetry) website, which gives the sources and dates. You can check them here: http://www.salmonpoetry.com/bookshop-search.php. I do understand that Salmon is partly a 'shop' source, but the reviews here are neither shop nor boilerplate, nor primary for that matter. These are established outlets: The Irish Times, Poetry Ireland Review, etc. Apart from my recently published fourth collection, Haunt (March, 2015), all of my previous collections has been reviewed at least twice, and these were good reviews. Maybe that doesn't count as significantly notable in Wikipedia, and if that's the case, fair enough. But to dismiss them as boilerplate/primary/shop is simply incorrect, as are assertions that 'claims' don't hold up (neither the originator of the article, Chris Emery, nor my own updates make any claims as such; they are merely stating facts: publications, prizes, etc.). As I said, I am willing to accept that the article on me might warrant deletion if it fails GNG, but I still don't understand the reasons given for this failure. I'd be grateful if anyone can clarify these. Yours sincerely, Markgranier1 (talk) 18:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for getting back Mdann. Yes, Salmon has posted the positive reviews but there are no negative ones that I know. Not that every review is completely non-critical; McAuliffe's, in the Irish Times, is probably the most critical my work ever received: http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/searing-sketches-of-a-suburban-childhood-1.583325 Markgranier1 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of boilerplate sources, I was more discussing about what I could find on the wider web - not what was included in the article. In terms of the salmonpoetry site, the issue is that it doesn't talk about the subject as much as we need - all it says to us unfortunately is that you have written the book (it appears, from a look, to only host positive reviews). Mdann52 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Probable~~ Keep This article may simply need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added a review of one of his books of poems from The Irish Times. I think he'll pass WP:CREATIVE. I went to his talk page and requested that he post links to reviews, discussions of his work. Sources do seem ot exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am no poet, but I am able to access Poetry Ireland Review on JSTOR. Search his name and you get 397 results. Mostly, these are poems of Granier's published by the Review. But also reviews of his books. Granier is clearly a notable Irish poet. Changed my !Vote to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granier is a notable Irish poet as demonstrated by E.M.Gregory. Reggiegal (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
see also the sources on Writing:ie Here:[14]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet WP:GNG. Artw (talk) 19:55, 20 June 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) JAaron95 (Talk) 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Swade[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This source has been published since the last AFD which does directly address the subject, announcing he now works for Rolling Stone. Other than that though the coverage is, as before, all brief passing mentions e.g. [15] [16]. As before the article was written by a paid editor and I don't think that WP:BASIC or WP:GNG are met. SmartSE (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the creator of this entry. I have declared any COI on the talk page. The subject is notable and definitely passes WP:GNG. This is a filmmaker who has co-directed and starred in one feature for ESPN, is in production on another, has directed or produced several short docs for ESPN and Rolling Stone, and written a book. He does not simply "work for Rolling Stone" - he heads their video division. His activities have regularly received coverage in well-known press since 2012, as can be seen in the article's references (which include pieces in The New Yorker, New York Times, New York Daily News, Variety, Kansas City Star, etc.)--Bernie44 (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bernie44: Can you post the references you think show that the GNG is passed - i.e. substantial, independent coverage of the subject. IMO, the Variety is the only one which directly addresses the subject. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 14:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the subject easily passes GNG with articles and interviews such as these: Variety, Kansas City Star, Slam Magazine, another Kansas City Star, Austin Chronicle. And then there are also these: The New Yorker, ESPN, MLB.com and Rolling Stone. And the others cited in the entry.--Bernie44 (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Between coverage of There’s No Place Like Home and additional material like the Variety article, seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE: There's No Place Like Home (which he starred in and co-directed) has quite a lot of coverage, even if his book didn't get much (I guess sports fans prefer TV). Colapeninsula (talk) 16:29, 22 June 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. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse (sports)[edit]

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

Lacks notability, no logical basis for the article. Severe lack of sources. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the same concept as "choke," but also the same as "loss of momentum" or any number of other linguistic formulations, and there would be no way to set up a sufficient number of redirects. Should there be an encyclopedia article on the concept of the sudden failure in sports alone of a team? Why not "surge" for the team winning? Why not "miracle ending" for the team coming from behind? The concept is bankrupt. As for the article, it's mainly a POV table of "notable" (i.e. famous to contributors) collapses in sports (that contributors follow). So, delete for dictdef, POV, and impossible to remedy (WP:TNT). Hithladaeus (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Fix: The concept of a collapse is distinct from choking because it takes place over an extended series of games or matches. The original chart was populated from a statical study of collapses, but was supposed to give color to the article as it was expanded. Places like 538 have written a lot about statistical analysis of team performance. The information is out there, but other Wikipedia users just haven't picked up on it yet beyond adding rather superfluous entries to the table. Again I want to ask why the only thing Wikipedia users seem able to do is nominate things for deletion instead of making the site better through addition.Sturmovik (talk) 20:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Your refinement of "collapse" was not in the lede when I read the article. When a hitter in baseball gets a home run, is that because the pitcher failed or because the hitter succeeded? If a best of seven series has the Teddybears up 3-0, but the Lollipops take 4 in a row, is that a "collapse" or a "surge?" POV is absolutely integral to this concept in competitive sports, and it assumes -- always -- facts not in evidence (that the team or individual is static in all other respects of ability from one outing to another). If 538 devotes analytical time to this, it's chasing vapor or hoping for phenomenological validity. I fail to see how anyone benefits from being lectured about what lazy/lousy people they are. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not altogether fond of this sort of article for exactly the reasons Hithladaeus gives (all of these articles, such as choke (sports), dynasty (sports), etc. have vague and borderline unenforceable criteria for inclusion and end up being quite region-focussed). But as long as those other articles exist, I think the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument is a valid reason to keep collapse as well. The article needs to explain what on earth the "peak probability of victory" is, though – it looks like a neologism and probably shouldn't be there. Aspirex (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists can be valid or invalid. But since you describe the other stuff as having "vague and borderline unenforceable criteria for inclusion and end up being quite region-focussed," it seems it would be invalid in this instance. Mnnlaxer (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems to go way beyond its sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would also recommend that the Choke article be deleted also due there being no strictly defined criteria of a collapse in sports or a choke in sports. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The definition of this term is purely subjective, and so this has no encyclopedic value. The list is basically just a subjective list of cheery-picked sports events too. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an impressive and interesting chart, but that's not enough for a stand-alone article. BTW, is there anything on WP that even covers the notability of concepts? It's too hard to search for, especially because there seems to be a typo in WP:Other stuff exists (coincidentally, see above). "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability ..., and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Seems like it should say "general concept of notability." Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Herbst LaZar Bell, Inc.[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Seems purely promotional. Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - My searches found results but nothing significant and notable here, here, here and here (several press releases throughout). SwisterTwister talk 18:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:31, 21 June 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) JAaron95 (Talk) 15:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Eugenia Cárdenas Santa María[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD only had one other participant with a very weak argument that ambassadors are inherently notable, which is not true. Fails WP:BIO. Coverage merely confirms she held positions LibStar (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added additional material about her career NealeFamily (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

whilst article improvement is welcome, your edit adds just routine material about her career from a press statement. what we need is genuine indepth coverage from third party sources. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you on that, however it does point to there being more to this lady than just her ambassadorship. What we really need is someone who has access to Columbian or South American material to source better data. NealeFamily (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - look for "Patricia Cárdenas" (optional + embajadora) full name is rarely used [17] 103.27.227.107 (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC). This is me by the way. KiwikiKiWi (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. WP:BIO does not specifically mention diplomats. It does refer to "politicians ... who have held international ... office", which expression it does not now define. Whether or not that includes ambassadors, the guideline does say that a person is notable if they are "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention". Ambassadors satisfy that criteria. We should, therefore, follow the draft notability criteria of WP:NBILATERAL, which are a correct exposition of that basic idea. James500 (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

drafts like essays do not replace current guidelines which do not give inherent notability to ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 27 June 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. Ghastlee Ghoul[edit]

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

NN local public-access TV host. Unable to find decent RS to satisfy GNG - lots of self-published fan-sites and a few plugs saying he'll appear somewhere. Failed CSD with rationale that being on public-access TV makes you important if you're there long enough. The Dissident Aggressor 02:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. He was one of the 60 or so horror hosts covered in the 2009 documentary American Scary, along with a handful of other successors to Cleveland's Ghoulardi. [18]. HighBeam yields some light coverage in local media in Dayton. [19] So he's not completely without reliable sources, but not enough to warrant an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone who's hosted the same TV show for several years may well have gotten a decent amount of coverage, especially because the time period enables us to have secondary sources, rather than just primary sources like news articles about the guy's current activities. I declined the speedy deletion because we ought to have a chance to discuss whether they exist or, as demonstrated here, that they don't. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 20 June 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 Beirut: The Last Home Movie. (non-admin closure) JAaron95 (Talk) 15:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mouna Bustros[edit]

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

Non-notable and at best better to move to Beirut: The Last Home Movie (although she is not currently mentioned). My searches found nothing to suggest independent notability here, here, here and here (a few links). The article was started April 29 and no further edits have been made to improve it. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into and re-direct to Beirut: The Last Home Movie. No independent notability is shown.--Rpclod (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above or delete. No evidence of meeting the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Eli Jackson[edit]

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

Non-notable and basically unsourced since its inception and my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no significant coverage about him. This is what the article looked like before being reformatted. I could've easily PRODded this but I wanted a consensus to support the deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable Heyyouoverthere (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-published, motivational stuff, etc. -- no indications of notability by a fairly long stretch. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially unsourced article with no indication that he has receieved the coverage to merit an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 22 June 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. Davewild (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montage (software)[edit]

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

Page is little more than an advertisement for a bit of software, no indication through Google search of notability. Primefac (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Software article of borderline notability. The two refs provided, MacNN and applelinks.com, do not appear to be particularly high quality sources; neither has a clear editorial policy, and it is unclear if they produce advertorial content. The various MacNN mentions are routine announcements of new version releases. A search did turn up a macworld review and a number of incidental mentions. Macworld is higher quality than the current refs, and the software may be notable enough to keep.Dialectric (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing suggests the subject meets WP:NSOFTWARE criteria. No reliable sources given.--Rpclod (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as well because although it hasn't received considerably large coverage, I found a few links like the MacWorld and MacLife reviews and Highbeam and Thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister talk 18:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Joint Syndrome[edit]

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

A neologism, per the 2nd source.

Firstly, the current sources are no good.

The website "alternativemedicine.com" is not a suitable source per WP:MEDRS.

The second source "medicineuptotheminute.com" also is not suitable. It links to this commercial site [20] which is trying to sell this product.

So if we can't use the current sources, the article topic is possibly non notable...

There is one google books result (which is one of the above sources)

And no pubmed search results

If this is a notable medical term then probably someone would have mentioned it in a reliable medical publication. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The device in question appears to be a kind of Low level laser therapy. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This gets more suspect... The user who created this page also created the page "Dr Ronald Shapiro", which was also deleted as promotional (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Ronald Shapiro). This character is one of the people involved in the company selling this device ([21]). It is possible there is a conflict of interest. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a GREAT catch Matthew! Zad68 04:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Marketing neologism. The article itself demonstrates the invalidity by defining the term (first) and then defining it as the overuse of a joint, mostly due to osteoarthritis. That makes this "malady" osteoarthritis by a cute trade name, and the cute name is to sell stuff or garner clicks. ("But Steve, I don't have arthritis. Mine's a lot worse than that! I have toxic joint syndrome, and I need my special willow branch and copper bracelet and magnets and pills of hydrogen monoxide.") Hithladaeus (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an accepted or notable medical condition. Pubmed brings up zero articles on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per proposer, this term is a neologism, so the lack of references is not unexpected. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 23:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, spam. Zad68 02:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alt med spam... AndyTheGrump (talk)
Delete this spam, per the (unanimously expressed) considerations above. [Maybe time to close?] 109.155.60.103 (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. Fairly obvious spam. JFW | T@lk 17:38, 22 June 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 Deleted as G12 (copy vio). Diannaa (talk) 03:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Vereshaga[edit]

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

Appears to be a Google translated copy of kamchatka.rgo.ru/ob-otdelenii/eksperty/vereshhaga-evgenij-mixajlovich/. I'm not sure if this constitutes copyright violation. Adam9007 (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - tagged it CSD G12 as a copyright violation. Jbh ^Talk 00:45, 20 June 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) 15:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rondae Hollis-Jefferson[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. WP:TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 00:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Is this a joke? Hollis Jefferson was a first team all PAC 12 selection. He is likely going to be a first round selection in the NBA draft. He clearly meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks like trying to get a jump on things. He was named to All-Pac-12 one year. Otherwise, the critical line is that he announced himself for the draft as a sophomore. Had he not done that, I doubt anyone would be writing this article. "Projected" to be a first round pick is the very definition of CRYSTALBALL. Remember Bobby Hurley, if you don't remember any of the dozens of "projected to be"s who weren't. If none of that works, remember that articles follow, not lead. Hithladaeus (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Hurley met GNG long before he was ever drafted by the NBA. Rikster2 (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand the point I was making. I hope I don't have to spell it out for you. A "projected" first round pick is not a first round pick. A first round pick is not a successful player. Writing an article as soon as a sophomore announces his eligibility for the draft might be common practice, but it's a violation of the guidelines. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this player meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, so it most certainly not a violation of guidelines.The article could have been written at almost any point in this last season. Wikipedia notability is based on independent media coverage of individuals, not any certain award or achievement. Rikster2 (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at NCOLATH. The nominator said the article failed it, and it did/does. Furthermore, switching the rationale for college athletes away from their area of notability to "just got coverage" is ridiculous and does not make any sense at all. If he were not playing basketball for Arizona, how much coverage would he have? Right. Therefore, NCOLATH applies. It has to apply. Otherwise, we're saying, "Well, players from Notre Dame all get articles, no matter what, because of the media center there, and players from Seton Hall, because they're in the New York media market, definitely get articles the moment they start playing, because there will be RS." We don't switch to GNG because the "power" schools get articles written about everyone down to the team trainer. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "switching" to GNG. The sport-specific guidelines only exist to guide editors about which figures will probably meet GNG. There are many more athletes (and actors and government officials and writers) who are notable even if they don't meet their topic-specific guidelines, which can never anticipate all cases. Also, sources must be independent of the school/conference to meet GNG anyway, so if the athlete is getting notable coverage from the independent press (like major newspapers and national sports media), they go beyond just being promoted by their school. Rikster2 (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep he absolutely meets WP:GNG based on his college career and the funny thing is that by the time this AfD takes his course he will have already been drafted in the first round of the NBA draft, for which he is a lock. That isn't my reason to keep, but I am pointing it out because only on Wikipedia would people push to delete an article to have it re-created a day or two later. Rikster2 (talk) 13:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be more specific, I think 2 of the first three references on the article already are independent sources, and the SBNation one is on the border (that site is a hybrid of journalism and blogs). But if you don't like those sources, then there is this and this and this and this and this. Seriously, this isn't all that close. Rikster2 (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia, it's a mad race to tune into a news and write an article as quickly as possible, whether it has information in it or not, too. This leads to disaster. It leads to AfD being full of "absolute lock" pro sportsball players who are in high school. It's not too much to ask for people to wait for athletes to actually get drafted or get an individual honor or achievement of national rank. This sophomore played well, but he did not get the Naismith, for example, so why reward this author for jumping the gun because you agree with the "absolute lock" and punish the other punters who are equally sure that their local hero is going to be the greatest name in athletic history? (By the way, getting drafted doesn't pass the bar, either. An athlete has to play at the professional level.) Hithladaeus (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because this player meets WP:GNG. Do you disagree with this? If so, why? Please make a policy-based argument. Rikster2 (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The player fails NCCOLATH and fails BIO. The nominator was correct about that. However, you and others wish to hector the nominator for making a proper nomination per policy. First, you and others claimed that there was no policy reason for the nomination, so I pointed it out. I remind you that the nomination was legitimate, but you seem to move to "keep" because you personally agree that the player will soon pass. That's not a policy exemption. Now, you argue that the article should be evaluated solely by GNG. Well, the athlete's article fails NCCOLATH and BIO. Please don't accuse nominators and people who disagree of outlandish behavior. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not argue that he will "soon" pass. I argue that he passes GNG right now and also soon will pass WP:BASKETBALL (as first- and second-round NBA draft picks fall under that sport notability guideline). He probably also meets the third provision of WP:NCOLLATH in that he "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." you have no guideline-based argument here. Also, I didn't "accuse" the nominatior of anything. I assume it's a good faith nomination, just as you should assume good faith about my motives. My comment about the draft coming up was a general observation that the timing (which I have no idea if the nominatior was even aware of) makes this a bit silly since the article will meet a sport-specific guideline in 4 days. Rikster2 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that you assumed he would soon pass NCOLLATH, which, indeed, you say. Saying I have no guideline-based argument multiple times doesn't change the fact that I was applying NCOLLATH, where the figure does not pass. He had not won an individual award. There was no documentation of reliable sources on his individual honors. Being all PAC-12 is fine, but it doesn't qualify. I assume good faith and literacy with the nominator, because the article itself said that he was expected to be a "lock" for a first round draft pick. In fact, that's the very language that makes this such a terrible article and signals so clearly that it's CRYSTALBALL. My argument was, is, and continues to be that NCOLLATH is a refinement of GNG and that the article is TOOSOON. I object to people waiving TOOSOON simply because they agree with the inevitability of it (I've watched a lot of NBA draft days). It's far too high a price to pay to license the thousands of junk articles that would follow by weakening this standard. Go ahead, though, and repeat that I "have no guideline-based argument." It won't be truer. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he will soon pass NCOLLATH. I said he would soon pass NBASKETBALL. But, in fact the third provision of NCOLLATH is "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." He probably does pass that today, although that isn't what I was arguing. The article does not claim he is any sort of lock for the draft, that section has been rewritten to be fact-based. BTW, he does actually pass WP:BIO based on the sources in the article and those I have posted here. Rikster2 (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you walked by a magazine rack at a major book store? There are, without any exaggeration, five to ten glossy magazines per conference of college sports that publish each month on the glorious glories of the incredibly play of the incredibly players. They get their information from reporters, I suppose, and from sports information offices. Add to those the dozens of local publications, and, as I said, getting iRS on every player at a power conference team would be easy. GNG would be a breeze for every starter on each football team, and every high school athlete merely committing to Duke, UNC, Syracuse, Michigan State, etc. GNG can't trump NCOLATH and yet be more restrictive, and yet, there it is. That doesn't even get into the draft-day jumping articles, of which this is one. Look at the practice of Wikipedia authors. Look at the "movie" articles created as soon as a gossip blog mentions a name. I remember how well Hollis-Jefferson played. I've watched a lot of brilliant play from young players over the years. This article remains predictive in several important respects. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough for you to believe that the sport-specific guidlines supersede GNG. Can you produce some consensus discussion that points to this? Because I have been a part of AfD discussions where people meeting the SSG have been deleted because they didn't meet GNG and also ones (like this one) where the figure can be argued not to meet SSG (though I'd point to that 3rd provision of NCOLLATH and argue RHJ meets it) and yet are kept because they meet GNG. At the end of the day, GNG overrides. If you want to suggest otherwise, you really need to offer up more than your opinion. But I'm out on this discussion. I believe the case will stand on its own merits when it's all said and done. Rikster2 (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to piggy back on Rikster's point, WP:NCOLLATH is merely a subsection of WP:ATHLETE. The beginning of WP:ATHLETE states, "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." (emphasis mine). That makes it pretty clear that 1) GNG is still the main standard, and 2) meeting either GNG or sport specific can be used. Failure to meet one of the two is not grounds for deletion. If that is not clear enough, please refer to question one of the FAQ at the top of the page on WP:ATHLETE. That states explicitly that sport specific guidelines do not replace GNG. Hithladaeus, if you would like to see GNG become secondary to sport specific guidelines, that discussion can be started, but until that happens and the status quo changes, GNG is the standard, and this article should be kept. SCMatt33 (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Adding on to what Editorofthewiki said...if a player Hollis-Jefferson's caliber should not have a Wikipedia article, a lot of deleting needs to be done in the college basketball section. TempleM (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep For same reasons listed by others. WP:NCOLLATH should probably only be used outside of DI basketball and FBS football as those sports receive a higher level of coverage, making the achievement level within the sport necessary for notability lower. Perhaps we need to consider creating a notibility guideline specifically for college basketball. SCMatt33 (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let's alert the press offices at all of the D-1 schools, because we can expect an article on every single prospect. I believe that's the situation that NCOLATH sought to remedy. I believe UNC, Duke, NC State, all have some pretty good basketball players, and not every one of them has an article. Wake Forest players should, too! Then all the people who play football for Florida State definitely need an article. Then.... Trust me: there is a press office at each school designed to generate RS for the athletes. There are about 15-50 magazines on the racks that exist solely for talking about "hot prospects" and "scouting reports" in college, and they'll be happy to write articles about "best blocking fullbacks in the SEC." No matter how much you may agree that this article is warranted, switching to GNG is a bad idea for college athletes. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not exactly what I was proposing. Based on what it takes in college basketball to receive individual attention, the standard needs to be lower than winning a national award or being inducted into the college HOF. I would think that every player who is all-conference in a power 5 league will meet GNG. Remember thats's all that other notability guidelines are, a rule of thumb for a particular sport that provides a quick guidance to determine whether GNG will likely be met. At the end of the day, no sports notability guideline overrides GNG. If an individual meets GNG, it does not matter if WP:NCOLLATH or WP:BASKETBALL are met as long as GNG is met. Rickster2 has clearly shown that there are plenty of sources for Hollis-Jefferson to meet GNG. That being said, the points you raise about "hot prospects" and not every player from a prominent team meeting GNG are absolutely true, but I think that we need to have a discussion about where that line is given that a player like Hollis-Jefferson, who obviously meets GNG does not pass the threshold for WP:NCOLLATH or WP:BASKETBALL. SCMatt33 (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Rikster's explanation. I also believe it meets GNG. DaHuzyBru (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Rondae is already considered a first round talent as it is (with further evidence pertaining that he's an invited Green Room guest for the 2015 NBA Draft). Even if his offense was really faulty, he does have considerable defensive skills to make up for shortcomings for at least the short-term. Furthermore, we have plenty of articles on players that had never even touched the NBA at all, let alone were lucky enough to get on there in the first place. And don't get me started on the quality of articles we allow for some of the really old school NBA (or should I say BAA) players that we decide to keep for one reason or another. If a guy like Rondae Hollis-Jefferson really deserves to have his article deleted for whatever reason, then there should be a lot more articles that need to be looked at as well. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can we please remove this from deletion now? I don't think ~~Portland Trail Blazers~~ Brooklyn Nets fans appreciate that one of their selections has an deletion consideration on their latest first rounder now. - AGreatPhoenixSunsFan (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Got drafted in NBA, certainly notable, not too soon now (maybe back then), and everything above. —DangerousJXD (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close as "Keep" - Now that he has been drafted in the first round of the 2015 NBA draft he meets WP:NBASKETBALL. I move to close this as "Keep" because no one has argued he doesn't meet GNG and now he also meets a sport-specific guideline too. Rikster2 (talk) 05:09, 26 June 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.