Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 May 31 May >

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates[edit]

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

The movie has not begun filming yet. Koala15 (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - a simple news search shows filming has begun [1] —МандичкаYO 😜 06:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator My bad, it actually has begun filming. Koala15 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 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. Consensus is that he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. The reasons cited in favor of the Keep argument do not satisfy WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Conrad[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable person. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides having a more-notable twin in the same field (not a notability criterion), I see nothing by which he stands out as more than a typical working mathematician, and in particular no evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's an associate professor and Google Scholar shows his paper, "A q-Analogue of Mahler Expansions, I", cited 20+ times, and his paper, "The Digit Principle", cited 30+ times. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails every criterion of WP:ACADEMIC by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 22:14, 3 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. Number 57 14:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Dixon[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harlan Hill[edit]

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

Non-notable individual whom the article claims to have been involved in several somewhat notable events provides. However, article sources do not establish this involvement. Unable to find any third-party sources myself. --Non-Dropframe talk 21:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed SOCK comment[2]Keep: covered, but not directly mentioned in many articles. Is specifically mentioned in the Lancaster Times several times. I think the original wiki author got a date wrong here. Should be 2013, not 2011? [3] HoyaThomas01 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - References either do not mention individual or are duplicates of the same trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A good number of the references don't even mention him, and he is not notable. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References are mostly passing mentions or none at all. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: But fix the article. The focus of this article should not by his political work, but Tally. They're building voting machines and election technology that's really well respected in NGO circles (of which I am a part). They're actually making elections work in parts of the world that haven't had any elections in decades, like Somalia.--34esmond (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)— 34esmond (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck sockpuppet vote --Non-Dropframe talk 23:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How does the purported notability of the company support the notability of the individual? Notability is not inherited. Given there are no references that support the individual's notability, it is unlikely the article will survive regardless of how it is written. reddogsix (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Your point is taken. I suspect this article may be premature, until more media attention is given to his work as the founder of the company. --34esmond (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as too soon, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found no good coverage and even the current references don't all mention him or in passing. SwisterTwister talk 19:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article makes unsupported claims and claims media attention when he was exposed as the one listed employee of a larger organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 2 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) 17:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Talpe[edit]

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

The sources do not independently verify the subject's notability, being themselves not notable. No WP:RS here unfortunately. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources themselves are significant in verifying the person in question's notability. Googling him in "google news" will show his name appears more than a dozen times in independent sources. The sources I chose to include in the site are significant, albeit in another language. I believe the user Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is biased against me and has been edit warring with me for a few days now. He also claimed that I vandalized the page Louis Talpe (the person in question) when I did nothing. I actually created the page. However, he deleted external links and references and tried to get the page deleted several times. His behavior on wikipedia is perhaps questionable. Anonymous032 (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: covered (not just mentioned) in many reliable publications in the Netherlands. Esquivalience t 20:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The Dutch coverage is good, but in my opinion not quite enough to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302 which guideline are you referring to? Sigificant coverage / reliability / sources / independence of subject / presumed ? Anonymous032 (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a substantial amount of coverage. Ormr2014 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a lot of coverage, and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's behavior seems questionable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.1.48 (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe that User talk:71.202.1.48 is the same account as Anonymous032, so he is attempting to manipulate consensus here with an extra !vote. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend blocking the nominator temporarily, since he made disruptive edits to the page and now this deletion request.Anonymous032 (talk) 05:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As shown with the links by User:Wikimandia, this actor is covered by reliable sources which write about him as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 5 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 was delete as G8 and move to Draft:Oussama Belhcen (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oussama Belhcen[edit]

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

PROD removed. No indication of notability. Searches could not find anything to indicate the notability of the subject as found at WP:NMG. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This duplicated Ryan Belhsen, so I've converted it to a redirect. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:03, 30 May 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silas Santos Silva[edit]

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

Don't let the large amount of references fool you, not a single one of them shows that this person is notable. Most are either dead links or links to his profile, ie a self-published source. Also, autobiographical article. Pishcal — ♣ 20:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree, most of the provided references are either broken or personal blogs and profiles. Searching provides no indication of general notability. Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 20:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I usually stay away from academics as I'm not an expert unless it's obvious the subject is not notable and it seems this is the case. News, Books, browser and Scholar found nothing to suggest notability and all of his works at recent and nothing there suggests notability as well. SwisterTwister talk 19:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azzam Daaboul[edit]

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

Not notable. Most sources on this person are social media, no significant coverage. Pishcal — ♣ 20:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 20:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) which found nothing different from the current sources and even those aren't significant and in-depth. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 2 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas (HD Universe)[edit]

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

This is an fictional city with no notability per WP:GNG. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 19:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 2 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 by User:MelanieN under criterion A11. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 23:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beetroot Pantling[edit]

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

Non-notable game. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree as per nom. Additionally, fails WP:V. Only one of the three provided citations mentions the subject of the article, and the content is in a personal blog. Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously made up, no reliable source coverage. Was previously speedied at the title Beetroot pantling. Everymorning talk 20:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A-11. The only source that mentions this term was published today, and with very little substance. No other source, reliable or otherwise, found to suggest this even exists. CrowCaw 20:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a third rate hoax. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a hoax.Charles (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as A11 (borders around G3 as well) - As with beetroot pantling (deleted as A11), I went ahead and tagged this as all my searches found absolutely nothing. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only reliable independent reference is irrelevant. The only three ghits (which don't include the other two refs) have the same text in each. Peridon (talk) 20:22, 31 May 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 Gavel. North America1000 00:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sound block[edit]

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

delete per WP:DICDEF. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to gavel, where it fits with context and is mentioned. Should there be encyclopedic coverage (somewhere) of sound blocks that doesn't equally apply to gavels as well, then a future split might possibly then be warranted, but having isolated micro-stubs of a defining sentence doesn't serve the interests of an encyclopedia, per WP:NOTDIC. --Animalparty-- (talk)
  • Move to gavel as suggested, Books finds results to show this exists but nothing to suggest there's in-depth informationa about it. SwisterTwister talk 19:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge (snow close as such?) per Animalparty. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Merge per above. PianoDan (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to gavel. Sound blocks don't seem to be notable independently of gavels. I could only find reliable sources for the pair of objects and gavel seems the dominant term for the sound production device. --Mark viking (talk) 18:10, 3 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TUD:OS[edit]

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

I can't find independent sources that would establish this is a notable subject. nonsense ferret 19:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 2 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lee Hutson[edit]

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

Couldn't find any independent source on Google. Potentially a non-notable musician. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 07:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: I agree. The artist is not notable, not enough reliable, secondary sources to establish it. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as too soon - I actually found quite a bit of coverage from several news sources but nothing specifically significant, notable and in-depth (mostly from KMUW or for performances) therefore, I'd give him some more time. SwisterTwister talk 20:08, 31 May 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Los Santos (HD Universe)[edit]

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

This is an entirely fictional city with no notability per WP:GNG. Truly a detailed guide for fans, but Wikipedia is not a video game guide. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I'm am extremely interested in GTA V. Play it every single day and have seen every single thing. Since there is already a GTA V article, I thought it would be alright to make one about the city. It would definitely be good for people who want to know more about the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DominicSeidel2 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read about Wikipedia's core content policies of Verifiability, Neutrality, and No original research. Please also see What Wikipedia is not. Not all topics, real or fictional, deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia. In order to ensure content is in line with the above policies we require evidence that a subject be covered by multiple independent, reliable, sources, as explained in Notability guidelines. Alternative venues exist for publishing fan guides outside Wikipedia, such as wikias. Case in point: Rockstar Games Wikia: Los Santos (HD Universe). --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 10:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 2 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Demiri[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer (soccer player)- they've only played for the U-17 team, so fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 18:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. The only reason it wasn't speedied is because I wanted to be sure they weren't notable (along with the 10 other articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence or references that the soccer player is notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 2 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Caldwell[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer (soccer player)- they've only played for the U-17 team, so fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 18:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. The only reason it wasn't speedied is because I wanted to be sure they weren't notable (along with the 10 other articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 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 deletion (A7). (Non admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rinor Hashani[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer (soccer player)- they've only played for the U-17 team, so fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 18:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I declined an A7 earlier, but I'm more than happy for it to be speedy deleted. I only declined it because it was one of about 10 articles that may have been notable per WP:NFOOTY, but turns out none of them are. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 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. Number 57 14:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Sutliff[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer (soccer player)- they've only played for the U-17 team, so fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 18:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 2 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. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Glowaski[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer (soccer player)- they've only played for the U-17 team, so fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 18:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bradley[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer (soccer player)- they've only played for the U-17 team, so fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 18:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Kirn[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer (soccer player)- they've only played for the U-17 team, so fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 18:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He is semi-pro. Not notable for soccer, and nothing else even mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 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. Number 57 14:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ayman Kiani[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer (soccer player)- they've only played for the U-17 team, so fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 18:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The team is of such a rank that playing for it does not make one notable, no outside coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert does obviously not know of the large fan base surrounding USL soccer, the league Islanders is a part of. They often play MLS teams in the US open cup, and HCI has over 3,000 fans attending per game. Not only this but pennlive often writes locally about the team and they are famous regionally not nationally, but still worth enough of having player pages, especially when such a player is seen as the next big thing for the club.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:986:8000:2dce:bdbe:1315:bf88:2caf (talk • contribs) — 2601:986:8000:2dce:bdbe:1315:bf88:2caf (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete - Clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 00:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Me being a soccer fan, I'm happy that the Harrisburg team gets good press and has modest fan support. Except I'm missing the part where this is the Islanders' article. Kiani hasn't actually played for the team yet, according to its website. Nha Trang Allons! 17:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 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. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Western Rite Orthodox Catholic Church[edit]

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

No reliable sources, questionable history, and incoherently written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMDG4 (talk • contribs) 23:58, April 12, 2015‎

Procedural Note This is a lost AfD nomination that was never transcluded. The time of this comment is the approximate time it first appeared at AfD. Monty845 17:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More inclined to delete as there doesn't seem to be significantly good sources about this. The Italian wiki has some but nothing looks good but found some looks particularly either while News found one link but it says "Ethiopian". I would have also suggested moving to Arnold Haris Mathew, the only actual link to this article but this is only mentioned through a "see also" section. Searches at Highbeam, thefreelibrary and Newspapers Archive also found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 31 May 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 move to article title. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. LaCour[edit]

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

As the author of a retracted paper he doesn't pass WP:PROF, as someone known only for this one event he doesn't pass WP:BIO1E, and as someone known mostly for an incident of academic dishonesty he doesn't pass WP:PERP. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a WP:PSEUDO-biography that falls in conflict with WP:BLP1E --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC) !vote switched to keep-under-new-title, see below. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Context is important: scientific fraud is part of the permanent record and, like other cases, has now been documented extensively. It is crucial to note that there is substantial precedent on keeping pages like this, e.g. Jan Hendrik Schön, Haruko Obokata, etc. Note that in some cases (like the former) there is a redirect, while in others (like the latter), we retained the article on the person. At any rate, it is clear that article must not be deleted. Agricola44 (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Super speedy move - this article is not acceptable as a WP:BLP, wholly WP:UNDUE. This is what is called a "pseudobiography" - writing about a scandal and titling it with the person's name. The only thing about him is the first sentence. Move to When Contact Changes Minds. —МандичкаYO 😜 13:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • seconding User:Wikimandia proposal of a Super speedy move And I think the fact that this faked study is on the front page of this morning's NYTimes [9] has moved this past consideration of whether or not to keep the contents.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this will be discussed for some time because of the various lapses that let it happen have to be addressed. —МандичкаYO 😜 15:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, are we proposing moving it to When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality, or some shorter title?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory I think just the first four words, and probably capitalized (When Contact Changes Minds) because it's a title. Should we just be bold and do it, or ask an admin to review this AfD and consider speedy move? —МандичкаYO 😜 16:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that given the intensity of news coverage, it is better for WP to have an article under the article name (searches on his name will redirect), and time, therefore, to Be Bold and Move it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent is again important here. We often use author name followed by "scandal", e.g. as in the Schön scandal from a few years back. Few people will be searching based on an esoteric, difficult-to-remember title. Many more will search using the author's last name. "LaCour Scandal" might be best. Agricola44 (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
E.M.Gregory OK, I was bold and did it! Do you think the title is too long? Agricola44 It's best to avoid sensationalized titles like scandal. The journal retracted it, which is major, but it hasn't been proven that the author was a total fraud or he used his grant funds on strippers etc. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that strippers must be involved for something to be a scandal, then you don't understand the way science works. Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
By the way I wouldn't be adverse to another title. It will be appropriate to have this one redirect. But the main thing now fleshing out the article because it's really stubby. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the article has been moved, can we close the AfD? It was about the pseudo-biography of LaCour, not about the retracted publication, and so is now moot. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in new position, although I would argue change of title to just the first four words, rather than including the subtitle. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It sounds like this AfD can be closed and discussion can move to the talk page. The title, as it stands, is way too long. Moreover, it does not serve any purpose, since users will not be searching in this context. Begging to correct Мандичка, it is a scandal, although we do not have to use that word specifically. (Must we then change Schön scandal?) Something like "LaCour Incident", "Retracted LaCour Study", or some such would be fine too. It should contain his name, since that's how most people will be searching. Otherwise, we'll have to set up lots of redirects. Agricola44 (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    Agree with Nom hat it's time to close this and continue talking about a name at new talk page. Perhaps: Retracted gay marriage study. More specific than "incident", plus I see more headlines, hear more conversations referring to it as the "gay marriage" study than as the "LaCour study".E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'll close AfD. We can continue discussion about title on talk page. "Retracted LaCour study" isn't bad. Agricola44, even though it's a scandal, the guidelines for titling events (WP:NCEVENTS) recommends the titles be as neutral as possible, to avoid subjective words like scandal, disaster, tragedy, catastrophe etc. —МандичкаYO 😜 18:03, 1 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 01:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshei Darius[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I see no references other than ones on Facebook. Eddie 17:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 18:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am beginning to believe that this is part of a hoax. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iury Snow. Definitely does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another dubious article about a "successful" underground Croatian boxer. Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Facebook is not a reliable or independent source. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searches through News and Books quickly found nothing and all sources are social media or otherwise self-published. Even simply look at what a browser search finds, seven results all from Facebook. Absolutely nothing to suggest this is a notable boxer. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 2 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) –Davey2010Talk 18:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin She[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable film. I dream of horses (T) @ 17:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Seems to have a reasonable number of reliable sources. Though it's in poor shape. It can be improved. Can take up deletion again later if needed. Coderzombie (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article contains reliable links from very reputed newspapers of India. SO it is a request to keep this page as further references will be added time to time from other reliable publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criusblack (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gujarati language:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:INDAFD: Vitamin She Faisal Hashm
  • Easy Keep and continue improvements per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Production is receiving coverage and filming has begun. The nominator is urged to be a bit more diligent in his WP:BEFORE prior to making an AFD nomination and cautioned to refrain from using a personal opinion "Potentially non-notable film" as a reason... as this is both incorrect and a "opinion" as a deletion rational is not supported by guideline nor policy. IE: Your supposition is not a proper deletion rationaleSchmidt, Michael Q. 23:27, 2 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 as G5 by User:Sphilbrick (non-admin closure). SwisterTwister talk 21:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aisa Lagta Hai[edit]

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

Song from a film with no notability to be found with no reliable refs either. Wgolf (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 18:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-seems like the creator likes to add these short articles for these songs with categories with only one or two articles also. Possible sockpuppetry also. Wgolf (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Refugee as suggested because there is nothing at all to suggest this particular song is notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-looks like it will be speedied as a sock-which I expected. Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 4 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. North America1000 01:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legal advice[edit]

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

The most fundamental objection to Legal advice is that it's a definition. There was a somewhat vigorous debate at Talk:Legal_advice#proposed_deletion about whether that's the case or not. In summary, the article offers a definition of legal advice and then attempts to tease out exactly how to identify "legal advice", for this definition of legal advice. While I think there are other reasons for concern, this seems like a strong enough reason on its own to delete the article. Fabrickator (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Ironically, clicking on the "find sources" link, the first (unsponsored) hit, at the moment, is for "free legal advice"... which would seem to be an oxymoron, based on the definition provided by this article. Fabrickator (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a notable thing called "legal advice" which is distinct from just any old advice about some legal issue.BayShrimp (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - highly notable subject. Article is unreferenced, but it should be based purely on sources and I don't see any issue. This is a good source to start, first I found: [10], another [11], and this indicates [12] additional information can come from the term "legal advice" having different meanings in different places —МандичкаYO 😜 16:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Ummm, just curious: how do you advocate a "snow" Keep after only one other Keep proponent had posted? Nha Trang Allons! 17:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the nomination is so completely absurd that it is obvious that has zero chance of success. As in this case. James500 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea who Vizzini is, or what you are talking about. It might, frankly, be possible to invoke WP:SK on grounds that the nomination is frivolous. Broad topics with massive coverage like this are never deleted, though they are sometimes merged (to a co-tract if one can be identified, and, in this case, none has) or disambiguated. The outcome of this AfD is a foregone conclusion. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - Legal advice is extremely notable and is a extremely well-known term, We're an encyclopedia and this is encyclopedic. –Davey2010Talk 16:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but it won't matter: The search term is a self-explaining compound (e.g. "coffeetable," "kneecap") that barely rates a definition. The content tries to save the article by offering context in common law (but not vs. civil law) nations and "in the age of the Internet," but those sections aren't well documented. This content is more naturally found at "attorney" or "law." Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A coffee table is not just a table on which coffee is served and a kneecap is not a cap to cover your knee. BayShrimp (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mistake connotation and denotation: Both words entered the language as self-explaining compounds. The coffee table may be used as a shield against gunfire in detective films, but it does not change the denotation of the word. The knee cap caps the knee. The patella, on the other hand, is a wonderful topic in medicine. I'm talking about words, and you're talking about cultural tokens. A timetable is a table of times. Metaphorically, "timetable" has been extended, but that's, again, something else, and when Wikipedia gets into the business of tracking figurative associations, connotations, and cultural implications, it will have stepped off the high dive. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this objection. A coffee table is a distinct item of furniture (generally lower than most other tables) - are you denying this? This characterisation is not a cultural association or "connotation". This is what "coffee table" means. This is what you'll get if you walk into a furniture shop or design museum and ask to be shown the coffee tables. Are you saying we shouldn't have articles on coffee tables or kneecaps? Are you saying the Wikipedia article timetable should cover all tables of times without distinction (tables of sporting records, lists of the longest feature films, TV schedules, ephemerises, calendars, time-zone tables, tide tables, lists of radioactive half-lives, guidance for roasting meat...)? Are you saying Wikipedia should assign meanings to words based on their etymology not usage? Do you think the article great coat should be about awesome jackets through history? Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is clearly under-sourced, but remains a notable topic. This source linked above mentions the fact that (in the US), giving legal advice is equivalent to practicing law, and carries with it certain laws and regulations. The article currently discusses the use of this term in UK law. I think this current (and potentially future) expansion from the definition exclude it from WP:NAD. Bordwall(talk⁄ctrb) 20:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly - legal advice is regulated. If you are not a lawyer but you represent yourself as one and give "legal advice" you can be prosecuted for practicing law without a license, even if you never set foot in the courtroom or charged a fee. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep. Absolutely utterly preposterous nomination. Obviously notable. This clearly satisfies GNG with many books devoted entirely to it, and significant coverage in many hundreds of relevant sources in GBooks alone. It is obviously capable of being expanded beyond a definition. For one example only, in A First Book of English Law (4th Ed), O H Phillips tells us that legal aid and advice are not the same thing, and his section headed "legal advice" discusses the legal advice centres set up in 1959 under Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949, and the voluntary legal advice scheme set up at the same time. That sort of content is clearly more than a definition. Note that this level of coverage in an introductory work indicates that the topic is of enormous importance. And there is plenty more coverage of that kind. In this case, however, the word/definition/concept, such as the definition given by section 7(2) of the said Act of 1949, is also notable as a word/definition/concept, having received plenty of coverage as such, which is allowed under the rubric of NOT anyway, if you read it carefully. (Statutory 'definitions' and case law on their interpretation are certainly not dictionary definitions. They are propositions or rules of law. They are instructions or commands from Parliament and the courts that have the force of law and, ultimately, some kind of sanction for non compliance. For example the said section 7 is not just a definition, it is really commanding that legal advice, as therein defined, be given in the cases therein specified, or else. Statutes don't define terms merely for the sake of doing so. And dictionaries never have the force of law. If you wanted to be really awkward, you could insist on renaming the article "the law of legal advice", or such like, but it would be pointless nitpicking and it is not our normal practice. You might as well try to argue that our articles on murder, manslaughter, etc are mere definitions. And you would be equally wrong. And the definition given in the said section 7(2) certainly isn't self explanatory. The enormous amount of information in sources on this subject won't fit into the article "law" (WP:SPINOUT) and since we have not had attorneys in the United Kingdom since the Judicature Act 1873, that isn't a suitable target either.) James500 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As verbose as your comment is, I'm having trouble figuring out what points reasonably support your "keep" position. Responding to your most salient points, such as they are:
  • Legal aid and legal advice are not the same thing.
    • Perhaps that would justify an entry for "legal aid", but I don't see how that would support an entry for "legal advice".
      • No, what I was saying was that there are different types of legal services, that they may be independently notable and that they shouldn't necessarily be lumped into a single article. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal advice centres were established by an Act of Parliament.
    • Even though the pertinent act provides a statutory defiition of "legal advice", it is still being used in the sense implied by the combination of the individual words, i.e. advice pertaining to the application of the law.
      • What section 7(2) says is: "Legal advice shall consist of oral advice on legal questions given by a solicitor employed whole time or part time for the purpose and shall include help in preparing an application for legal aid and in supplying information required in connection therewith for determining disposable income and capital, but (subject to the following provisions of this section) shall not include advice on any law other than English law." That is not obviously "implied by the combination of the individual words" at all. It is not even close. In some respects it is more restrictive (oral advice only on English law only given by a solicitor only (not even a barrister) employed for the purpose only). In some respects it is less restrictive (help in preparing an application looks more like assistance than mere advice and supplying information required for determining disposable income and capital looks more like the work of an accountant than a lawyer). (The provision has been copied, with modifications, by other countries. O H Phillips seems to further suggest that "legal advice" only included advice on non-litigious matters). But that isn't the point that I was trying to make. The point that I was actually trying to make was that if we can include information in the article about, for example, the nature of the legal advice that is actually provided, and the circumstances under which it is provided (eg by the said Act of Parliament, certain particular services were available in a special place for a special price for poor-ish people, and there was a voluntary/charitable scheme as well), and the reasons why it is so provided in that form, under those circumstances, and so on and so forth, that information is clearly more than a definition, and clearly places this topic outside of the scope of the policy you tried to invoke. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statutes have their own specialized definitions.
    • Are you really suggesting that we should be describing the finer points of the definitions as specified in every notable statute?
      • Actually the salient point was that the passage in section 7(2) which might appear at first sight, to a person who doesn't understand what a statute is, to be a definition, is in fact no such thing. It is not merely a definition. It is in fact "the command of a sovereign backed by a sanction" (to paraphrase Bentham's definition of a law). It has to be read in its context, which is mandating the provision of "legal advice" at a reduced or nominal price. Moreover, in that case, it is not merely the statute that is notable as a whole. The level of coverage is so large that individual sections of the Act could reasonably be regarded as satisfying GNG. This is not unusual for Acts of Parliament. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition given in section 7(2) of "Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949" certainly isn't self explanatory.
    • Hardly any law is self-explanatory!
      • I was merely denying the factual accuracy an argument advanced by someone else above. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fabrickator (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You haven't addressed all of the salient points that I made, or even the most important ones. You have, most importantly, not addressed the vast discussion of this topic in GBooks and elsewhere, much of which goes far beyond a definition. Even if it is not in the article now, it still has to be considered that it can be included in the article per ATD, BEFORE, IMPERFECT and SOFIXIT. AfD isn't cleanup. The sole objection you have made against this article (calling it a definition) can obviously be fixed by editing. And there are already parts of it that are not a definition (the provisions of the Legal Services Act 2007), so it doesn't really even need to be "fixed" in that sense, though the article could be improved. James500 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of what I come across regarding "legal advice" (and this evidently includes "Legal Services Act 2007") is in the context of people seeking information about the law without having to hire the services of a legal professional, such as self-help materials, what sort of "legal assistance" may be provided by librarians, and assistance provided by court personnel in their proper conduct to facilitate access to the courts. The most common usage of the term certainly seems to be as part of a disclaimer by someone who has provided their opinion about some kind of legal situation and who hopes to avoid a lawsuit in the event that someone acts on their advice with bad results and/or to avoid being charged with the unauthorized practice of law. You keep raising the statutory definition in a specific Act of Parliament, but nothing in the title of the article suggests that's what it's about. While an article on that subject may be very appropriate for Wikipedia, it's got nothing to do with this AfD. As written, the gist of the article is still just a definition with examples to help one determine whether something is "legal advice". Although you say that the "definition" issue can be overcome by "fixing" the article, one could make such a statement about virtually any article that, as written, provides a definition. The "possibilities" for this article are highly speculative, given where the edits have taken this article, but deleting the existing article for being a definition should not discourage someone from creating an article about this topic that is actually suitable for Wikipedia. Fabrickator (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree. The article is not merely a definition. In fact, the vast majority of it isn't. The passage that says that the Act of 2007 "means that [legal advice] can be provided by any person not just an officer of the court. However, if it is provided by a lawyer or another person authorised by one of the front line legal services regulators, then this activity is included within their regulatory reach", to give one example, is not a definition. It is a discussion of the consequences of giving legal advice. The following paragraph is not a definition either, it is on observation that legal advice can be had on the internet, and a general description of what legal advice can be obtained. The second paragraph distinguishing "pro bono" advice from that which is remunerated, and discussing their relative frequency, is not a definition of "legal advice". The only part of the article that is a definition is the first paragraph. Moreover, by WP:PRESERVE, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:ATD, which are policy, we never delete an article merely because it is a definition at the moment, because that is a problem that can be fixed by editing. We only delete an article if it is incapable of being expanded beyond a definition. NOT specifically warns us that a stub is not a definition, no matter how much it looks like one, and we must be very careful not to confuse the two. It warns us that an expandable stub is never to be deleted just because it looks like a definition. And this article is a perfectly valid stub. There are good reasons for this approach. Deleting articles on notable topics doesn't facilitate improvements, it obstructs them. In particular, anonymous users can't create new articles, so we immediately exclude the majority of editors by deletion. It also makes the topic less visible to registered users, thereby reducing the likelihood they will do anything. It destroys any existing useful content (so that the same work will have to be done twice). And ... there are lots and lots of other reasons that I don't have time to name. It is just a very, very, very bad idea. As for section 7(2) of the Act of 1949, the title of our article strongly suggests that our article is at least partly about the type of legal advice therein described. It is impossible to get away from the fact that it is exactly the same expression. I'm not convinced your analysis of the common usage of this term is correct either. The idea that this refers primarily to a disclaimer is not what I am seeing in reliable sources. And in this respect, we don't care about unreliable sources. The article certainly requires improvement but there are no valid grounds for deletion. James500 (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • James500, I think we have gotten to the nut of the issue between us. You cite WP:PRESERVE, which states "preserve the value that others add...", and the value that I see in the existing article is either "de minimis" or negative value. One statement after another is made which is consistent with the idea that something can be "legal advice" only if it's paid for, or otherwise provided in conjunction with a relationship that has been established between a legal professional and a client (an "attorney-client" relationship, as we would say in the states). I reject this claim. The "unqualified" definition of "legal advice" is "advice" pertaining to the law. It's "legal advice" whether it's right or wrong, whether it's provided by a professional or somebody who is completely unschooled in the law; it means just what those two words mean, until somebody has "qualified" the term by stating the definition provided is in the context of unauthorized practice of law, or legal advice that a librarian or an officer of the court should provide, or legal advice in the context of a specific statute. So the article is loaded with erroneous information and has a few bits of things that, in most cases, are no more than tangentially related to the topic of the article. From this perspective, one must sift through an article that has almost nothing of value, to get a few crumbs. Seeing negligible if any value in the existing article, my perspective is that WP:PRESERVE doesn't really apply. Fabrickator (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information in the article isn't obviously wholly unverifiable. In particular, there is a statute that says "legal advice" can only come from a solicitor. If there is a verifiable alternative definition of "legal advice", that is an argument for disambiguation, not deletion. However, in my experience, when dealing with a broad and seemingly amorphous topic, the community tends, rightly or wrongly, to resist disambiguation unless the difference between the two definitions is overwhelming (and sometimes intense resistance continues far beyond that point). "Advice about the law that is from a lawyer, or is paid for, or both" is fairly close to "advice about the law", and is, in any event, a subset. I expect the community to regard them together as forming a single topic, or at least to regard the former as a subtopic (meaning that we just rework the lead of article). In any event, precise determination of the exact scope of the topic should be deferred until more sources have been compiled (ie as many as possible), as it will be easier at that point. Nor is AfD a suitable forum for reaching such a determination. The article is not so obviously spectacularly wrong that I would expect it to be deleted. It would be much easier to improve the article than to start again from scratch. It would involve less effort. We don't want to end up like Nupedia. James500 (talk) 23:28, 5 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) 15:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Creeps (film)[edit]

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

Delete: low budget, ridiculously unimportant film which is clearly being used as someone's Facebook online promotion. Quis separabit? 14:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Year:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)keep
Director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Writer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brazil:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Germany:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spain:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep and clean up and add available sources. Sorry nominator, yes the thing is unsourced (addressable) and the plot section is overlong (also addressable) but we do not judge a topic by how ridiculous a film might be or by the size of its budget. We look to available sources even if not used to see that the topic meets WP:NF. For instance, through a quick WP:BEFORE it was easy to find a brief review from the A.V. Club. There are many more to any who search. Notability is met... it just needs work. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I manged to condense the synopsis some... reducing it by nearly 200 words. Whew. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added several film reviews to the article. I also removed the COI tag since I couldn't see where anyone involved with the film had edited the article. If they had, then it looks to have been removed or been so minor of an edit that it wouldn't really merit the COI tag. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mainly because the article has improved and now has better sources. My News searches found nothing but Books found some results (nothing that looks outstandingly good though) but then again this is a horror movie. SwisterTwister talk 14:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has had a few reviews added to it, including Fangoria and The A.V. Club. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 5 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) 15:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parsiana[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, as required by WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL. In addition, this is so promotional that this article will never be the one to show notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a little promotional in places, but to describe it as "so promotional that this article will never be the one to show notability" is a gross exaggeration. In fact this article has now shown notability with the addition of links to a Times of India article about this journal and a Daily News and Analysis article describing it as one of the main periodicals serving the Parsi community. 82.9.185.151 (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:41, 30 May 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. Consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 21:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dorsey[edit]

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

Delete: non-notable as WP:NACTOR Quis separabit? 02:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A few searches found nothing aside from a passing mention at Books here and this convinced me that it's unlikely he actually became notable despite having several roles over the years. The longest thing he had was 6 episodes of Murder She Wrote and I found nothing about that. SwisterTwister talk 19:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep He has a NYT reference, which is a reliable source. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not easy, when you have to weed out Joe Dorsey the boxer and Joe Dorsey the pool player and Joe Dorsey the meteorologist and Joe Dorsey the Delaware politician and Joe Dorsey the basketball player and Joe Dorsey the guy who plays guitar out on the sidewalk for dollars (okay, I made that one up) ... anyway, the gist is that I couldn't find squat about the guy. Nha Trang Allons! 17:24, 1 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Kerr Macdonald[edit]

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

Biography of a municipal councillor in a small town (pop. 18K now, 5K when she was in office), making no strong claim of notability under WP:NPOL and relying almost entirely on terrible sourcing — photographs, election results tables and a newspaper obituary of her daughter — which fails to satisfy WP:GNG. "Existed" is not what gets a person into Wikipedia — "satisfies a Wikipedia inclusion criterion" is, and this article as written fails to present or source any evidence that its subject does so. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom —МандичкаYO 😜 14:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No demonstation of this person being even close to notable. She was a local politician who made no lasting impact. Also problematic that so many of the sources are primary ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although this is early in history for a female politician, I could not find enough reliable sources to argue keep. Searched both maiden and married names. No prejudice against a new article, if someone publishes or finds articles or books covering her career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:34, 2 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. Delete arguments are stronger in policy. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph Clarke[edit]

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

As seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-stage model of free will, the article creator, User:Cmsreview, started a bunch of articles with problems. This one relies on a couple of primary sources, so there is no third party notability established. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His h-index is 17, which I think indicates that he has been widely cited by third parties. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that philosophy is typically a fairly low-citation field. EricEnfermero (Talk) 21:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Widely cited by third party sources. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote by blocked sockpuppet. Davewild (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A published academic, but does not meet any of the specific criteria at WP:ACADEMIC that would make him notable by WP definitions. LaMona (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: A dozen or so well-cited papers, but not enough to be WP:PROF#C1 worthy. No evidence of fulfilling other WP:PROF criteria or WP:BASIC. Esquivalience t 02:22, 6 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 The Presets#Compilations. More input here would have been ideal, but so it goes. Closing as merge to The Presets#Compilations, as per the suggestion at WP:NALBUMS, which states "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to into the artist's article or discography." North America1000 21:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resets[edit]

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

I have been unsuccessful in trying to establish the notability of this subject. Lachlan Foley (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 12:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge What is useful should go to the The Presets page since there appears to be no sources sited on the albums page. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:28, 30 May 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) 19:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia (Sirius XM)[edit]

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

Article is entirely unsourced; most Sirius XM channels are similar in nature to the automated programs offered by radio services comparable to Music Choice (as opposed to the inherent notability of terrestrial outlets). In the case of Sirius, there may be a few notable stations with a history and enough coverage to justify inclusion, but this does not. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Oh, dear. Ok, Wikipedia is not a radio guide or TV guide or web guide or anything else. Being a Sirius/XM channel is a fine thing, but that makes it one of 220 regular service channels, and the channels themselves get reshuffled and renamed from time to time. Tom Petty's Buried Treasures, Bob Dylan's Theme Time Radio Hour, and Little Steven's Underground Garage have personalities married to their segment interests, and each has gotten discussed in the press overall. The number of passim references to them is staggering. "Utopia" is not those. It's just a channel, as far as the non-subscribing public is concerned. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If we delete this channel, its going to be reposted again anyway or move to a poster's sandbox, plus if this the case then we should delete all of the other 219 channels too.Robert Moore (talk) 14:17, 7 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) 14:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Costello (fashion designer)[edit]

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

Article was proposed for speedy delete (Category A7 - Non notable subject) and was speedy deleted. The article has been subsequently recreated but the subject is no more notable now than on the 18th April 2015. I B Wright (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.Keep I agree with LaMona that this looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON but disagree on what should be done about it. Right now, I see one good source that counts toward notabilty, the LA Times article by Tschorn. None of the rest count toward notability for various reasons, most of them either because they're primary sources (including the interviews) or because they're not reliable sources. But WP:GNG requires multiple sources, meaning at least two. One is not enough. Without multiple sources, I have to !vote delete but suggest the article be WP:USERFIED while the search for sources continues. Msnicki (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep based on the Desert Sun source. Msnicki (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I was the editor who originally nominated the speedy deletion, and I am beginning to think I may have been a bit hasty in pulling the trigger then. A search of Google News shows that this guy seems to be an actual big deal within the fashion world, at least for now (it is notoriously fickle). However, most of the articles are along the lines of "celebrity X wore a gown by Michael Costello at Event X" and the bulk of the article is about the celebrity and/or the event, rather than being about the guy who made the dress. So the articles mostly support the claims of celebrities wearing his outfits, rather than being about him explicitly. I agree that if the article is deleted, it would be best to userify it so it can be cleaned up and references found. --Gronk Oz (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This year this fashion designer appeared on the cover of NY Times, it qualifies as a RS. The article is not complexity, really.
Shad Innet (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a link you can share? This source is not cited in the article and I would like to see it. Msnicki (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will accept this as a second good source. Msnicki (talk) 23:34, 4 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 as created by a blocked/banned user: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Itailevi00.  —SMALLJIM  14:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Itay Levy (children star)[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography of a person; no coverage at all. Esquivalience t 13:38, 30 May 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 Women and video games. There is consensus that this content should not be retained as an article because of original research concerns and problems defining the article's scope, but that the content could be reused elsewhere. I'm accordingly implementing the "delete" opinions as a redirect, which allows mergers of content from the history subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  07:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women and violence in video games[edit]

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

Unsourced essay/WP:OR. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wow, Arcanum? That's a pretty obscure choice for an academic study. Anyway, this looks like original research in its purest form – surveys and analysis performed by the article's author. Though it lacks inline citations, it does make reference to published research. The problem is that it's difficult to tell where the published research ends and the original research begins. I think this is kind of an interesting topic, but, sadly, Wikipedia is not a collection of things that NinjaRobotPirate finds interesting. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm willing to strike my vote after the rewrite and subsequent expansion. It looks a lot more like a encyclopedia article now. Any further problems can be addressed through normal editing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I said I would try to clean up this article but I really didn't know where to start. Do you even bother tagging things with {{cn}} if the entire article is unreferenced? Anyways, article does suffer from WP:OR problems, looking at sentences and phrases such as "This is a clear representation on how..." and "...women play games that are clearly targeted at a male gaming audience...", etc. However, this is not a reason for deletion unless the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, per WP:DEL-REASON. The article makes reference to research but never cites it, and the entire article reads a lot like an essay to me. Pishcal — ♣ 04:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve - I have removed the OR, added full citations, and fixed some of the tone issues just now. The topic is notable and there is tons of academic research that can be added to demonstrate notability & improve the article. I'll continue working on it over the next few days, it should become apparent that this is a definite "keep" quite quickly. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would going to add some citations, but I gave up after the third edit conflict. Maybe you could try making fewer rapid edits in a row? Anyway, the article looks better, but it's still problematic. I'll look at it again later. I've given up hope of making an edit on it today. And now I got an edit conflict trying to write this, too. Holy crap. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate: Sorry about the edit conflicts! You're right that it's still problematic. I'm sure it can be cleaned up with enough effort though. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - This is someone's research paper. The author makes it clear at User:HaydenLCase/sandbox. I don't see evidence that "women and violence in video games" is a distinctive topic from "violence in video games", the studies cited cover both genders, so why would we cover it separately? Sadly, our video game violence article is buried in the unreadable dreck that is video game controversies, but anything useful could also be merged into women and video games. - hahnchen 12:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just isn't notable enough. --☣Anarchyte☣ 06:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - once again I argue that WP:THISISMYCLASSESSAY should be criteria for speedy deletion. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Conceptually impossible to lodge. The topic of the rewritten essay is "women and their differential response to violence in video games." The name of the article trips over misogyny in videogames ("violence toward women" in video games) and portrayals of violence toward women in video games and female-instigated violence in video games. This keyword (lemma) won't disentangle in a searchable way. It can only fold in in a larger article. Therefore, it would have to be merged, if it were inarguably solid. I don't think it is. Unfortunate, because I don't think there's anything wrong with the writing at present. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A worthwhile essay. I learned some things from reading it. However the topic itself does not seem distinct enough for an encyclopedia article. (BTW and not related to the issue of deletion, violent female characters seem to be very popular and are not mentioned.) BayShrimp (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The topics covered are already included in Women and video games and Gender representation in video games. The article appears to be an independent essay with no reference to the existing articles, perhaps a school paper. Its been improved a lot since the nomination, but still doesn't link in to the existing articles on the subject. Add the appropriate material to those articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As essentially an essay, although some of the material might be usable elsewhere. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Geez. Going by the wall of delete votes, I've turned into a big pushover. Well, I guess it's still an essay at heart, but maybe something can be merged somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an original essay. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 6 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. With due appreciation for Wikimandia's efforts to source the article. Guy (Help!) 15:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila Musaji[edit]

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

This bio lacks sources for notability. One online source used in the article is to a website that disappeared. The other source is to the person's own online magazine. There are very few citations in books and even less mention in the text of books. Many of the books are compilations by the author and self-published. Most information is from her own bio from her own website. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm going to say this meets minimum requirements of author, [13] reference here as to her being a "leading American Muslim journalist"; and per her compilation of info related to Muslims condemning terrorism appears significant (and possibly the only one of its kind, I'm not sure) [14], [15]; [16] [17],[18], [19], [20], Strong mentions on Patheos, which although it is a "blog" should count as a RS in this area [21] —МандичкаYO 😜 13:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the hard work but let's take a closer look. The first link brings us to an article on The Chicago Monitor, which describes itself as "an online news, opinion, and commentary publication. It serves primarily to provide in-depth analysis of mainstream news and also uncover under-reported and unreported stories on the local, national, and international level." This implies it is not mainstream and deals with what's not notable by the mainstream. If I'm correct my search tells me only two Wiki articles currently use it as a source and its reliability has not been established. Jason from nyc (talk)
I use reference #2 in the article on The American Muslim magazine. The reference is in a section talking about publications that "make attempts to represent the whole community" of Muslims, which is "less well established" due to the communities lack of "homogeneity." It does say the magazine has reestablished itself online but gives no quantification of its success. Still, it is a good reference ... for the magazine. Jason from nyc (talk)
The others talk about her database. #3 is a blog. #4 gives a passing reference. #5 is an opinion piece. #6 is self-published by a vanity press. #7 is an opinion piece. Jason from nyc (talk)
Reference #8 is a blog, as you note, and is the strongest endorsement of the database. Jason from nyc (talk)
Reference #9 gives the database as a reference but doesn't talk about it in the text (as far as I can tell). Does every cited author (or data collector) get a bio on wikipedia? A few people cite her database but do no analysis or seem to use it in any substantial way. It's hard to tell its value. But I agree, the database is the issue. Is it enough to make her notable? Jason from nyc (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At first glance, I thought: probably redirect to the magazine. But I found so little sourcing for the magazine that I just tagged it also for potential deletion. Kudos to User:Wikimandia for heroic effort to find sources. My efforts to source this also failed. It seems to me that what we have here is a self-proclaimed expert publishing a self-proclaimed magazine. FailsWP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR. Kudos to User:Jason from nyc for spotting this vanity, self-promotion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:17, 3 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RockFood Music[edit]

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

A non-notable local events company. No references, no independent coverage, no evidence at all of notability. The company websites are dead links, and the bands managed are inside the same walled garden of non-notable promotional stuff. I'm also nominating RockFood, the company's promotional magazine, for the same reasons. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 12:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: They seem to be doing things the old way, DIY, and that's cool. It's the punk ethos, but it also means that they're not encyclopedic until people are talking about them. Fails notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy redirect to RockFood —МандичкаYO 😜 14:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RockFood is also the subject of this AfD. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I didn't see that. Thanks. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 2 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) 06:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gustaf Göthberg[edit]

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

Doe not meet notability criterias. None of the source are reliable. No independent sources exist which can prove notability. Deleted five times on Swedish WIkipedia due to the same reasons. (t) Josve05a (c) 11:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 11:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 11:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A young person staying busy, but not a notable one at this time. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete does not meet WP:NPOL LibStar (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has not yet reached notability as a politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep not the strongest merits, but many merits together. J 1982 (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J 1982: Could you link to sources, or policies which proves his merits are worthy of inclution? I know you are from Sweden, as well as I am, and I do have a COI in this issue, however I am forced to ask, since you are the only one so far opposing deletion, and with a strong !vote, if you have a COI in this Swedish political issue?; The Swedish Wikipedia did not see any notability in this subject to be included, what's different in the English article, or EnWP policies? Certainly not the sources. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • strong keep?.it looks like a very weak argument. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @J 1982: If you are correct and Göthberg is notable, you will be able to prove it by locating profiles of him in major newspapers and magazines - in any language. Add those articles to the page, sourcing his activities to major media and demonstrating that he has been the subject of in-depth coverage, and editors here will read them and keep the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, moderately; being active in a Moderate Party is not a valid claim to notability. WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. A person does not get a notability freebie just for being active in the youth wing of a political party, especially when that article is relying entirely on his own social media presence for sourcing. When reliable sources cover him in the context of something that actually meets a Wikipedia inclusion standard — such as actually getting elected to a seat in the Riksdag — then he can absolutely come back. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason that Göthberg's article has been deleted four times at the Swedish language version of Wikipedia (see [22]): the chairs he has held in political organizations aren't important enough. /FredrikT (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This person is not notable. RoadWarrior445 (talk) 06:21, 7 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) 18:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rehaan Engineer[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources to substantiate the rather florid claims made in this biography. Note that, for example, it claims he appeared in plays, but doesn't say where or what the significance was. Guy (Help!) 11:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - My searches found results here, here (a few reviews, one exactly for him "Rehaan Engineer impresses audiences with his portrayal of an uncanny hairdresser"), here and here but nothing solidly significant. He has an IMDb but there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 15:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the claims can't be verified, except that he has appeared in film. Notability can't be established with iRS. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 2 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) 06:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baker Boy[edit]

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

No Claim to notability MyTuppence (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 30. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 10:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - found a few local articles, but not enough to meet GNG for WP:CORP [23], [24] —МандичкаYO 😜 10:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A mess. The article says the company is "Baker Boys" and goes on to talk about the people. The ostensible company fails notability guidelines as well. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confused article, should be about the non-notable company, but instead it's mainly about their non-notable employees. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Probably could be deleted as an A7. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a leading manufacturing company of baked goods, and 1 of the top 10 employers of Western North Dakota. This is a very significant business in that region. The leaders and members of upper management are correctly ACKNOWLEDGED in this article. It should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.192.25.200 (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly fails GNG and CORP. Not happy with the spamming campaign from the above IP either. Being locally significant (which in itself is an unproven claim) does not constitute notability on Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like others, all I can find is some local coverage, but nothing like the coverage in reliable sources that would be needed to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Mr Potto (talk) 11:51, 3 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 hoax. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer and the armadillos[edit]

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

On Google, I cannot find anything on a band called "Spencer and the Armadillos", nor can I find any hits for a "Turnballs Records". A search for the names of the band's members ended up being quite amusing: Spencer Perrin appears to be a college basketball player, while Max Glynn appears to be a diver, but neither appear to have ever been part of any band, and a search for the other members result in nothing conclusive. With the lack of any mentions online whatsoever, I have to conclude that everything in this article is a hoax. Not one that's blatant enough for G3, but still a hoax. Looking at the article, the band's song names appear to be rather suspicious, but not enough that the hoax will be given away. If the article's claim that the band had a single that was a hit in Canada was true, probably there would have been at least some hits about them, but there are none. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:48, 30 May 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 redirect. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Palisene[edit]

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

This project never got off the ground (its land was sold back to the State of Arizona), making the entire page obsolete. It's still a flat piece of land in the Arizona desert that will likely never be built out, and it's not notable enough to warrant an article. Swishyhair (talk) 08:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:41, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:47, 30 May 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) 18:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marhama Edu-support Programme[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no independent sourcing The Banner talk 09:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A program that doesn't have a great deal of discussion, fails notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 2 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1640 Nemo[edit]

1640 Nemo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: there are a few small scraps of information available including a probability of impacting Mars in the future,[25] but there doesn't seem to be enough content to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 17:09, 5 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. – czar 14:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1547 Nele[edit]

1547 Nele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. Boleyn (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I found two publications reporting a lightcirve analysis for this object, but they appear to be double-dipping by the same amateur astronomer rather than two separate observations [26] [27]. In any case it's not enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: the photometry study didn't have much information. It looks like the minor planet may be mentioned in a few other papers, but they are behind pay walls so I can't check. Praemonitus (talk) 16:29, 2 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. Despite discounting WP:ILIKEIT from the - ahem - well-intentioned newcomers, this is still clearly consensus to keep. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bantams Banter (podcast)[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. This is a well-respected but ultimately non-notable podcast, it only received minor passing coverage at its height of fame/popularity - nothing significant or lasting, I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 09:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:GiantSnowman Many thanks for taking the time to review the Bantams Banter wikipedia page I created. I would like to make some points in defence of the page's suitability. I think the fact that Bantams Banter broadcast with Allan Davies for ITV is certainly notable and makes the page worthy of inclusion alone due to its contribution to the 2014 world cup. The fact that the Bantams Banter presenters have been on TV on BBC Football Focus and Match of the Day certainly makes them notable - and this would not have happened without the podcast.

I would also argue that the Podcast has achieved more notability than the podcasts listed below which have pages:

In addition the podcast made history by being the first to Broadcast from Wembley following a petition supported by Dan Walker off Match of the Day.

Happy to debate any of the above as I continue to work on expanding the Bantams Banter page. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC))[reply]

One, making a podcast with a notable person does not given them notbility - WP:NOTINHERITED. Two, making minor appearances on a handful of TV shows does not signify significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources - WP:GNG. Three, the fact that other podcasts also have articles is irrelevant - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 09:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:RS; sources consist primarily of blogs, You Tube, the Daily Mail etc. Stripped of these, it fails to demonstrate its own news-worthiness or encyclopaedic value. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 10:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if the article is kept then it needs to be renamed to simply Bantams Banter. The disambiguator is completely unnecessary, as there are no other articles on anything called "Bantams Banter"........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to have received occasional, passing mentions in national press, but almost exclusively for one broadcast at Wembley. This is not sufficient to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it is to be deleted then surely articles for similar fan based publications either in podcast or printed form should be deleted - such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Follow_Follow_(fanzine) I think to single this podcast out when there are also so many other podcasts with wiki pages which have not earned anywhere near the notoriety of Bantams Banter is unfair. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I don't believe Giant that you are being non-biased in your request to have this page deleted. I look forward to watching you continue your crusade against pages that don't meet your own criteria. Perhaps you should tackle some of the pages I have highlighted here since you are so keen to clean up wikipedia.(RedJulianG40 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep ITV connection and Wembley legal history make this noteworthy - agree with change of title to just Bantams Banter. (Copywriterstu (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment How is that fair? Giant If I voted in a general election for the first time, would my vote count for less/nothing just because I'd not been involved in any political party's dealings or had any previous interest in politics?
  • Keep Agree that connections to various large media platforms and first podcast from Wembley make this show notable. Alongside regular large download figures (episode from Stamford Bridge for example) from not only Bradford City fans but fans world wide (I'm a Gooner from USA, living in UK) - agree with removal of (podcast) from title. (PindyMyYowYow (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • — PindyMyYowYow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fenix down (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a regular listener my views are biased I suppose but this show went from 100 listeners to hundreds of thousands in 5 years, reached number 1 on iTunes many times, had a national network World Cup spin off with a national celebrity and their unique commentary has been featured on many outlets, including the nations most watched football programme. A small show, about a relative small team outside the Premier League has captured the imagination of thousands of football fans globally, how is this not 'noteworthy'? SaugsageKingOfChicago (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— SaugsageKingOfChicago (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fenix down (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the idea of Wikipedia is to provide people with information about subjects and people now if you ask me bantams banter IS a subject which involves people and therefore the page MUST be kept to provide people with information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.157.173 (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— 90.204.157.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fenix down (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I created this page as I believe, like the other pages I have created that this is notable and of interest. Bantams Banter created history in the UK by being the first podcast to broadcast from Wembley. This proves to be a valuable case study for other people running podcasts. ITV found the podcast notable and together with the comedian Alan Davies, they created a show based on Bantams Banter. The download figures far outreach the support of Bradford City A.F.C. and prove to be a humorous sports podcast enjoyed by football fans. Giant disagrees, and I believe where my opinion is biased towards inclusion I believe his is biased also. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep This podcast has gained international recognition (charting not only in the UK's iTunes Chart but overseas as well), it (and the two presenters) are frequently used in conjunction with media reports on Bradford City Football Club and has a considerable following. The criteria the proposer of deletion has applied could also discount a significant proportion of those podcasts listed within the Audio podcasts category, alongside a fair volume of articles relating to fanzines with significantly fewer consuming their content and with a relatively minor role relative to their teams and within local and national media. To simply dismiss this podcast as non-notable to me seems highly unfair and I must contest this proposal, it comes across as a highly unnecessary pruning. Calico1903 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well. other stuff does exist so what other articles do is pretty irrelevant. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 21:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very much relevant, were the proposer not a frequent contributor to Bradford City related articles, I highly doubt deletion would have been proposed. The point remains. "Ultimately non-notable" is ultimately opinion-based thinking, beyond that there's little grounds for deletion that wouldn't apply to articles for other podcasts, the targeting of this specific item seems most unfair. Calico1903 (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The podcast has been nationally recognised within press outlets up and down the country. Not only is it a great source of information it is in it's own right an entity that exists to entertain in a very engaging way. A clever format together with 2 lovable 'minor celebrities' gives the perfect mix for a show. If you are arguing to delete this then you are also arguing to delete other popular shows i.e. Scott Mills Radio show, Nick Grimshaw etc etc(Agouthelis (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
— Agouthelis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GiantSnowman 12:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment GiantSnowman needs to reveal his personal agenda against Bantams Banter and its inclusion, make all the accusations you like about meatpuppetry and suspected sockpuppetry, but what you can't escape is that the Bantams Banter deserves to be included for a number of reasons and your unfair targeting of this article just stinks... as I mentioned before - I look forward to following your crusade against unworthy podcasts and fanzines - I've highlighted some here - notice you've not made any attempt to have them deleted - you're just picking on the one that doesn't fit your personal agenda. And for the record, I have no relationship with Agouthelis, Calico1903 etc - can the same be said for you and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Fenix down? (RedJulianG40 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Don't take my AFD nomination so personally, it's genuinely not. WP:AGF! GiantSnowman 13:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think you need to just calm down and have a read of WP:AGF.You've already been alerted to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED, and bar a couple of mentions in national press, there is little coverage of this podcast out side of blogs. You're not winning any battles by throwing invective and insults around the place accusing editors of private agendas without providing a shred of evidence. You would be much better off finding significant, reliable coverage of the podcast (not its presenters or guest hosts or anything) to support your claim of GNG). To try to assuage your claims of bias and agendas, lets go through the sources presented in the article one by one:
1 This is an in-depth interview, but it does not that the podcast gets <60,000 downloads. To my mind, this is not particularly significant and supports the notion that this isn't that notable a podcast. It's just my opinion though.
2 This is just a link to their iTunes page, it doesn't support notability at all.
3 This is a primary source from the solicitors who helped them get clearance for the wembley broadcast, it is not suitable for attributing notability as the solicitors have a vested interest in promoting cases they fought.
4 This is just wordpress blog.Not necessarily unuseable, but I don't see anything to suggest this is a respected widely read journal. Aside form this this is just a Q&A with one of the hosts and discusses the podcast only tangentially.
5 This is a local newspaper report. As such I think this carries a lot less weight than a national paper.
6 This isn't about the podcast at all, but about the first MoTD from Salford. The podcast and its hosts are mentioned in two sentences. This is not significant coverage.
7 This is national newspaper coverage, but is very, very brief, amounting to no more than a couple of sentences. Without the pictures it is barely an article, and is more concerned with the build up to the league cup final than the podcast. I don't think this article would have been written had the club not got to the final.
8 This is a 3.5 minute bit on football focus. One appearance on national television like this does not confer notability.
9 YouTube is generally not considered suitable for establishing notability.
10 This is an interview with magician Dynamo about Bradford in the League Cup final. The focus is nowhere near being on the podcast. They are mentioned tangentially and again, would not have been mentioned had the club not got to the final.
11 This is disingenuously described in the article as an article on the podcast when it is not. It is a summary article about a number of topics. The podcast is mentioned in one sentence in the fifth item in this article. In no way is this significant coverage.
12 THis is the same solicitors article as mentioned earlier and is still not a suitable reliable source for notability.
13 This is just a link to West Yorkshire radio's sports page. Not sure what this is trying to do but it doesn't mention the podcast. Anyway, regional radio exposure is not to my mind sufficient to pass GNG.
14 This is another blog interview. I don't see anything to indicate it is a suitable source for notability.
15 This is a one off podcast with Alan Davies. One ITV podcast (which I doubt would have happened without the association with a much more notable individual is not sufficient national media exposure to satisfy GNG.
16 This is another iTunes page and says nothing about notability in the same way that the previous iTunes reference did not.
17 This I would class as a primary source as it is Bradford City FC reporting on the existence of a podcast specifically set up by fans of the club,with this article on a charity drive specifically linked to the football club itself and its charity endeavours.
So, in summary, yes there is a podcast, yes it is reasonably popular, but aside from fleeting mentions in national media it simply is not that notable. Fenix down (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix down made points regarding the ref links on Bantams Banter, I have addressed these below using the same numbering as above.

1 If you look closer they have had significant download numbers for several podcasts that have seen them reach higher in the charts than the likes of Ricky Gervais - the show has gone beyond the fanbase of Bradford City. 250 million downloads in total.
2 It does highlight the number of shows and download figures and popularity of the show
3 That maybe so, but you have failed to address the fact that Bantams Banter became the first podcast to broadcast from Wembley which is historically significant in broadcast terms. Helpful wouldn't you say to other sports podcasters.
4 That's your opinion on the widely read journal - the readers of this may disagree. The interview would not have taken place if it was not for Bantams Banter, hence why it is in the headline and URL - it is the main reason to read the article and clarifies who the subject is... notable for Bantams Banter.
5 But still carries weight.
6 Maybe not significant coverage but Bantams Banter were on MOTD as it broadcast its first shows from Salford, this would not have happened without the podcast. Being invited by the BBC to be on a show is pretty notable.
7 I count about four paragraphs worth of content, to describe this as not barely an article is just your opinion - a journalist and Editor deemed it worthy. And what constitutes an article in your opinion - do you have a word count?
8 No but several appearances do, which is what Bantams Banter has achieved. These can be listed for you if you like.
9 It highlights an appearance on national television which would not have happened were it not for the podcast.
10 And would not have been mentioned if it were not for the popularity of the podcast. The video also uses excerpts from Bantams Banter podcasts for the audio.
11 But it is coverage in a national newspaper - sorry it doesn't fit your agenda
12 It is if the law firm talks about how they helped a podcast broadcast from a cup final for the first time in history
13 They host a radio show, and would not have been able to do so without the popularity of the podcast.
14 In your opinion
15 The podcast is based on the Bantams Banter format and ran for 10 episodes. The show would not have happened if Bantams Banter had not contacted Alan Davies. This was advertised by ITV and was part of their World Cup coverage. Your opinion on whether this would have happened without Alan is just your opinion.
16 No but it lists how many shows were recorded, it is ITV's official iTunes page and mentions Bantams Banter are part of the show. You can't dismiss that it is the official ITV iTunes page.

(RedJulianG40 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

  • Comment - response on the above.
1 But it is still less <60k, that's the size of a small town and therefore for something available globally not really very significant. Besides this is specifically an argument to avoid at AfD.
2 Similar to the first point, why does the number of iterations impart notability, I could upload a thousand items but that wouldn't make them inherently notable. I'm not seeing where the download figures are on that page btw.
3 But it is still a primary source. For the broadcast at Wembley to count towards notability you need to show reliable secondary sources that discuss this. Currently the fact that the only source describing them as the first podcast broadcast from Wembley is from the solicitors who assisted them suggests that it did not get much coverage and so probably isn't that notable an event in a wider context.
4 This indicates the blog in question was viewed a total of 77,000 times in 2014. that's for the whole blog, not the interview. that really is not the sort of viewing figures that a source that would count toward GNG would be having. It's about 200 a day.
5 But as a local paper, not much simply because it is a report that has, by definition, a very limited audience.
6 As you yourself have conceded, this is not significant coverage and so doesn't count towards GNG.
7 Maybe four paragraphs but really 279 words. This is not significant, especially from a national newspaper.
8 It would be useful to list other significant appearances Their own website only documents the one appearance noted above.
9 But it does not indicate why this appearance is notable. Just because something happened does not make it notable.
10 And as you say, it is mentioned, but it is not the primary focus of the source by any stretch of the imagination, see Wikipedia:Notability#cite_note-1 this note specifically.
11 Its a 49 word mention in a near 900 word article on a number of subjects. It's nothing to do with an agenda, its simply that this is in no way significant coverage.
12 Again, as noted, this is a primary source. If the event is so notable, where is the significant discussion in secondary reliable sources?
13 They host a regional radio show and the source given provides no detail on that whatsoever. Their own website makes no mention of it, so it doesn't really seem to be that notable to the hosts even.
14 Indeed it is my opinion, but this is a blog specifically about Bradford City as noted here so its not really notable that a fan blog would have an interview with another couple of fans who run a podcast.
15 It may be linked to Bantam's Banter but the source specifically refers to it as "Alan Davies Brazilian Banter". It seems clear to me that this is an Alan Davies vehicle based on Bantams Banter, not the podcast in question under a different guise. As noted above, notability is not inherited.
16 I do dismiss it simply because all it does is confirm that the podcast exists. this is specifically not an argument to use in AfD.
Fenix down (talk) 09:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fenix down I trust you will apply the same effort that you have applied here to the numerous podcast and fanzine pages we have talked about. Good luck on your crusade to clean up Wikipedia... perhaps though you should focus your efforts on the ones less noteworthy than this one - by the way, how did Leeds Utd get on this season? (RedJulianG40 (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • 'Comment - your attitude is tiring. Instead of attacking editors, maybe provide some sources to indicate notability or refute some / all of what I wrote above. Oh, and I'm not a Leeds fan. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment - Fenix down Huddersfield? Your unfair targeting of this wiki page is tiring. You and your mate can do what you want with the page, as far as I'm concerned it deserves to be included. Do what you like, I've got better things to be getting on with. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's time Giant told the truth why he nominated Bantams Banter for deletion, anything to do with a match report PC? (RedJulianG40 (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • @RedJulianG40: - if I was you I would tread very carefully and read WP:OUTING. I have nominated this article for deletion because it is non-notable - nothing more, nothing less. GiantSnowman 16:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's time you understood that editors have been blocked for similar behaviour in the past. How many times do you have to be told that AGF doesn't just apply to other people? You do not seem to understand that the article is up for deletion because it does not conform to WP's standards; you have been told so often that I am beginning to think you never will. Either way, your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour is not likely to improve the article's chance of surviving, is it? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it doesn't conform to WP's standards then I trust you will join the others here in the massive cull of podcast page and fanzines that are not as notable as Bantams Banter... have fun doing it. You can't apply one rule to one and not to others. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

KEEP - The podcst itself has received national coverage both on TV and on the Radio, have been number 1 in the iTunes chart. These little fact alone prove notability on their success. I would agreed with changing JUST to read "Bantams Banter" however, (podcast) is not needed. Rinkydink84 (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Rinkydink84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GiantSnowman 16:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and? I made one error when I first registered on the site and the other was out of pure frustration. Ive made plenty of edits on this website before I was a registered member. Not sure how that even remotely has anything to do with whether a page should be kept up or not. Valid points raised on the discussion and yet.. you try to bring a personal issue into it. Nothing constructive about my post. If this was kept strictly to the guidelines of a discussion this may have been resolved and closed a lot quicker Rinkydink84 (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I think it would be useful if everyone just chilled out for a bit. The last dozen edits or so have had very little to do with the discussion and certainly haven't added anything new. It might be best if we all came up for a bit of air? Fenix down (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have been in touch with one of the chaps behind the podcast, he is locating offline sources he says shows "significant coverage" required by GNG; once he has provided me with references I will re-write the article and bring it up to standards. We can re-assess for possible notability at that time. If consensus is to 'delete' then I suggest we userfy instead, so the article can be worked on. GiantSnowman 09:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the absence of any additional discussion on this topic, I would be happy for a brief userfied period if offline sources can indeed be provided to indicate GNG. I would want to see some indication of what they were beforehand though as they would need to be materially different in nature to the sources presented above. Have you received these yet GS? Fenix down (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Fenix down I think I would like an admin's opinion that is not either yours or GBs. I think everyone here is far too close to the subject now and an unbiased opinion on the page should be sought. I also object to many of the edits done by Giant and the way he has reverted back my additions which i think would be valid in making this page pass any admin's critical eye. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Comment You should probably WP:AGF a little more. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - definitely RJG40, I consider myself involved (so don't think it is an AGF issue FIM). Plus, as I voice my opinion on most football-related AfDs, I don't perform any closing actions within that space as a matter of principle. If a closing admin thinks keep / userfy is the best course of actions and you are not happy with the current version of the article, feel you have exhausted discussion on the talk page and want a third-party view on it, then a third opinion or perhaps dispute resolution might be a good place to go to discuss things further with a neutral admin / editor. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RedJulianG40: let me quickly try and explain my edits - some of your edits have violated WP:OR, others use primary sources which are not appropriate (i.e. an article by their solicitors, or the iTunes website), others use non-reliable sources which are not appropriate (i.e. the Daily Mail), others misrepresent sources (i.e. the Brighouse Echo - you use it to justify the claim that BB was the 1st podcast to broadcast from Wembley, in fact the source clearly states they were "one of the first"), others do not use any sources at all. Please read WP:RS and WP:V before throwing around further false accusations. GiantSnowman 09:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant post-the AfD discussion if the closing decision was either keep / userfy and the editor in question was unhappy (as they seem to be) with the current version compared to historics. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my comment. Fenix down (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the result of the AFD is Keep, content disputes can voluntarily be taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Concerns about the close of the AFD itself can, if necessary, be taken to deletion review. I have recommended that the DRN coordinator close the current DRN request, because AFD is still in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Podcast appears to meet the notability guideline for web content because it has "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." (That being the 'Best Football Podcast' award at the 2013 Football Blogging Awards.) Now, I don't like the way that assertion is sourced in the article - I'd rather see it sourced to a news article or to the Football Blogging Awards' website - but it is sourced. The Wildman article in Sabotage Times is a non trivial discussion of the podcast in an independent reliable source. I would ideally like to see more mentions in reliable sources, but I think it does (barely) meet WP:NWEB. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:58, 8 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 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. While there are various sentiments to retain the article, the !votes for redirection have more weight relative to policy (WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG). As a redirect, the revision history is preserved, in the event anyone wants to add more content to the list article. North America1000 22:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1357 Khama[edit]

1357 Khama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Consensus is for those numbered under 2000 to be discussed fully, and not unilaterally redirected or prodded. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1357 Khama is 50km in diameter. When it comes to asteroids, the two most important things are SIZE and ORBIT. Any main-belt asteroid more than 50km in diameter deserves an article. As an example of when orbits are important, asteroids 20+ meters in diameter with a better than 1:10000 chance of impacting Earth also deserve an article. It is lame to delete/re-direct 50km main-belt asteroids when Wikipedia still has numerous computer-generated stubs about main-belt asteroids that are much less than ~10km in diameter. -- Kheider (talk)
  • Keep: It appears that organizationally we already have separate articles for 1001-2000 if you look at List of minor planets: 1001–2000. That may not be the only way it could be done, and perhaps the nominator plans to spend 100 hours combining the content in a different format, but it seems fine for now.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They intend to re-direct the article without combining any content. -- Kheider (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that is ridiculous, then. We are an encyclopedia. If one wants a redirect, volunteer to combine the 1000 articles. That could be valuable to the human race. Our job is to be useful here, not push paper.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has been my experience that people on a crusade are lazy and are more interested in an end result than actually making Wikipedia a better place. -- Kheider (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milowent: the general reasons for the notability requirement are specified on WP:WHYN. Beyond that, I think the notability requirement is necessary to make Wikipedia sustainable in the long term. Adding 100,000 articles that have essentially trivial content and are unmonitored, unverified, and subject to random vandalism does nobody any good. In the future these topics may well become notable, in which case they can be readily re-created. Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to delete the content as long as it is organizationally rerouted into a list page, which would be more easily maintainable.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between keeping "~50 articles on the largest asteroids of each orbital type" vs "having 600,000 articles for each asteroid." I do not think anyone is claiming every numbered asteroid deserves an article. The general public has no idea how to convert abs mag (H) into a diameter estimate. -- Kheider (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should keep individual articles on unusually large asteroids, but 50km is around the threshold that we've discussed in other recent AfDs (Jiangxi, Erfordia), and we have nothing but a database entry to use as a source for this one. The part about "chance of impacting Earth" is completely bogus: it's a main-belt asteroid, not an earth-crosser. As for Milowent's "we already have an article so therefore we should keep the article": that flies in the face of the whole AfD process, let alone the more specific criteria established at WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
David my real concern is that we already have the content, not what subpage of the our 5 million pages has it. If we are deleting content, I am opposed.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you could literally say that about any AfD on any subject, regardless of the notability of the subject. What specifically about this object makes you think it is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are asteroids notable? If redirecting to an asteroid list, that is the question, and the answer is yes. Why exclude the data about each asteroid whilst rearranging the how this content is presented on the project? Unless someone is going to do the task of moving the content, it shouldn't just be deleted via redirect otherwise. There's no reason a project can't be formed to do it by those who think its a better organization method. I formed a project that added references to something like 25,000 BLPs to avoid their mass mindless deletion, someone can just do the same thing here instead of randomly nominating asteroids.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have specifically searched for those references for this object (and for the other asteroid AfDs that I've commented on). For this one, I didn't find anything usable. For others, I did find references, and voted keep on that basis. Have you done such searches, or are you commenting only generically with respect to all asteroids? Because the generic debate has been done and over, and is recorded both in WP:NASTRO and in the many asteroid AfDs that have been closed as redirect since; why are you trying to re-open it? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not re-opening anything. I see an infobox on this article with useful encyclopedic information not currently contained in List of minor planets: 1001–2000. I personally insist that you or someone advocating for redirect add that additional information from 1357 Khama to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 and every other potentially redirected article, otherwise you will be awarded the Fahrenheit 451 Barnstar.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and there is precedent for what I'm advocating, its basically what was done with non-notable playmates a few years ago, e.g., List of Playboy Playmates of 2008, the content was combined into list articles.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are only about 500 asteroids in the main-belt that are larger than 50km in diameter. Just because a bot created several thousands of main-belt asteroid articles from roughly 2004 to 2008 is not a good reason to risk harming the project be re-directing the largest ones. The criteria at NASTRO was not written to deal with those that want to make a WP:POINT and AFD is not cleanup. -- Kheider (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My redirect has nothing to do with pointiness, and if I thought the article could be improved to an adequate state through cleanup I wouldn't have called for a redirect. The issue is that there is literally nothing to say about this object beyond what you get from a database lookup. There are no sources other than the database to use for properly sourced content about this object. There is nothing to say except for a number in a database about why this object is interesting. The JPL database already does a fine job of presenting database information, but an encyclopedia should go beyond that, and we can't in this case. So there is no point in having an article that is only going to be a copy of the database entry. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: It doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for notability, even though it is of decent size. No suitable refs. found outside of Schmadel (2013). Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Known diameter, Albedo, B-V color, and Tholen spectral type. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The current, valid guideline-based arguments given for deletion are WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. There are currently no valid policy or guideline-based arguments being given by those arguing keep. slakr\ talk / 18:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr\ talk / 18:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability). Size argument fails in that one of the criteria for notability covered by WP:NASTCRIT is already size, and its threshold is visible with the naked eye. ― Padenton|✉   20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Padenton, even the largest asteroids are not visible to the naked eye. The naked eye rule was added to WP:NASTCRIT for dealing with stars. When dealing with asteroids (also known as minor planets) you should be following WP:DWMP. -- Kheider (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional Keep, I've always felt it to be pure overkill to have a separate article for each lump of rock out there. However, my preferred redirect target, List of minor planets: 1001–2000 does not and cannot in its current format contain all the statistical information the article has. Reformatting the list would be an enormous amount of work, out of the scope of this discussion. I'd like it to be kept for now, with some thought given to condensing all of these articles into useful lists. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 30 May 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 Move to Our Political Nature. There is not the required consensus to delete the article outright, but among those who oppose deletion there is consensus to let the article be about the book, which is considered more notable than its author.  Sandstein  08:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Tuschman[edit]

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

single book, with excepts from reviews. That's not enough for notability as NAUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly, when I read the first 2 sentences, which semed to assert that Tuschman is an "evolutionary biologist" without an advanced degree who was born in "Stanford, California" (for the non Stanford-alums reading this, Stanford is in Palo Alto and although the university has a zipcode, the Standfod maternity hospital is in Palo Alto, as is the faculty housing. So unless he was born in a dorm...). HOWEVER, the sources are there. WP:AUTHOR stipulates "work must have been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This first-time author got reviews in major publications. There's a profile in the Palo Alto Weekly (it's not your typical "local" paper, this is Palo Alto). more abstractly, the book generated discussion of the idea it proposed, again in serious places including NPR and the Georgetown Public Policy Review. Also, he did get the Phd a few sentences in, and reviews ran in many of the Anglosphere's major publications [28], as did interviews [29] So, yeah, a first time author can certainly pass WP:GNG this one does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Forbes article is a contributor blog without editorial control (i.e. not a WP:NEWSBLOG see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_176#Forbes.com_blogs). SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
point taken. But what I'm seeing is that he sparked conversation among serious people, like other Forbes "contributors" here's [30] a whole Carrie Sheffield column on his book . Salon.com published a chapter or two. And, in general, the major outlets gave him serious coverage. The Washington Post started assigning him reviews of other "big idea" books, a meaningful accolade. Taking this up one level, what is the point of deleting an article on a anthropologist/author who has made this kind of splash with a first book?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't necessarily disagreeing with your !vote, but just thought I should point out that coverage from a Forbes contributor isn't that helpful for establishing notability. As for why this was nommed, see this thread at COIN. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, saw that. I understand the COI/paid editing problem. And while I have to look through the whole list, I think Tuschman's publisher should fire the guy, or get a refund because it is a truly lousy bio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Our Political Nature. I don't think that WP:AUTHOR is met but WP:BKCRIT is per [31] [32] and other sources. Doing this would concentrate the article on the book, rather than the author, for who the sourcing is substantially less strong. SmartSE (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support refactoring it to be about the book, as the book seems notable enough, the person not. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose renaming/moving to book title. The book certainly could support a stand-alone article. But sources for an article on Tuschman exist. They just need to be added to the article. Which should be 'kept. as I iVoted above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello. I have already introduced myself as a paid editor on the Talk page for this article. I am assisting Dr. Tuschman in this project. Here is what we have to say about this proposal to delete the article:

closer can unhat. this is tldr for an AfD
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We are not asking at this time that any of the material below be added to or retained in the article; we realize that Wikipedia is a joint project for the use of the world at large and not a vanity-publishing house. The material below is only for the purpose of establishing WP:Notability and most of it, we realize, is not suitable for the article itself. We know that all editors will work together on the exact details of what this article will contain once the matter of WP:Deletion has been satisfactorily settled. We urge and expect careful consideration and dissection of the material we present below, as well as all other material on this page.

A. Dr. Tuschman is Notable because he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

Definition of significant: "sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy."

Note the following:

Professor John R. Hibbing of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, has stated that Dr. Tuschman "clearly does" make a "unique and important contribution" to the field of "psychological, biological, and evolutionary bases of political beliefs." Political Science Quarterly, pages 545-47. http://psqonline.org/article.cfm?IDArticle=19304

Genetics and epigenetics professor Gil Atzmon of the University of Haifa has written that Tuchman’s book has "caused an uproar in the United States” and that it illustrated how significant was the role that genetics plays in determining political positions.

Above: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4570458,00.html

Columnist Cedric Muhammad, writing in Forbes:

“. . . it is the first book that I’ve read which credibly attempts to present a unified view of political science, anthropology, genetics, neuroscience and primatology, making a compelling case that we are hard-wired to be liberal or conservative by nature, environment and adaptation . . ."

Above: http://www.forbes.com/sites/cedricmuhammad/2013/10/29/michael-smerconish-and-pete-dominick-make-me-uncomfortable-what-centrist-independents-reveal-about-liberals-and-conservatives/3/

Above reprinted in Chicago Tribune at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-nsc-why-are-we-liberal-or-conservative----q-and-a-20131029,0,295802,full.story Link is broken.

Eva Saiz, in her article "En América Latina la clase media ha hecho que se encoja el espectro político," El País Internacional, October 5, 2013, states that Dr. Tuschman has added "a new perspective that unfailingly links our political orientation with our natural and biological predisposition" ("suma al debate una perspectiva que vincula de manera indefectible nuestra orientación política con nuestra predisposición natural y biológica . . . ")

Above: http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/10/05/actualidad/1380978589_342496.html

Atal Singh, in "The Science of Political Orientation," Fair Observer, September 29, 2013, has called Dr. Tuschman's work "the first book to reveal the science underlying political orientation" and wrote that "Several renowned scholars are saying this is an important, groundbreaking book."

Above: http://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/science-political-orientation”

Chris Mooney in Washington Monthly, April 28, 2014, wrote that Dr. Tuschman "has written a vast and often difficult book that attempts nothing less than a broad evolutionary explanation of the origins of left-right differences across countries and time—and does so by synthesizing such a huge body of anthropological and biological evidence that it’ll almost bury you.”

Mooney wrote that Dr. Tuschman has a "strong" or "highly developed" theory as to "why biopolitical diversity exists among humans. . . . If he’s right, a dramatic new window opens on who we are and why we behave as we do. . . . Tuschman’s book attempts a feat that those of us monitoring the emerging science of politics have long been waiting for. . . It may or may not stand the test of time, but it certainly forces the issue.

Above: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/on_political_books/the_origin_of_ideology049295.php?page=all

B. Dr. Tuschman has made substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity. Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Criterion 7 may be satisfied "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area."

We do have a list of lay publications and video clips from news organizations wherein Dr. Tuschman has been interviewed regarding his expertise. You can see that list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avi_Tuschman&oldid=659577688. We don't propose to restore that list, and we submit it to you only for the sake of establishing Dr. Tuschman's Notability for the sake of this discussion.

C. Common outcomes: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Literature

From above: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work."

Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Joseph2302, maybe this author/politician will do more in the future but currently he just doesn't seem notable.VVikingTalkEdits 14:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Joseph2302 and DGG has written one book with all sources only reviews about a book fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG for now and maybe notable in the future.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Working with Tuschman, I have gotten the impression that the author did a really poor job representing the nature of the work that they would be doing, and I know that they will not be working with them in the future. Additionally, there has been an effort to try to clean up some of the fluff on the topic and go from there, but I am a bit more neutral on the subject due to talking with them for so long, and I do not want personal viewpoints to interfere with the article. I would support renaming it though, as I think the majority of the article (especially before the cleanup) was about the book, which makes it a bit lopsided in my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to name of book Appears the author is known mostly for this book. The NYTs mentions him only because of this publication [33] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, this is Avi Tuschman (talk), the subject of the article. I just introduced myself on the article's talk page. I'd like to present the case for keeping this article as is, although there is a lot of work that needs to be done to make it more complete and accurate, which I'm happy to help with at the right time. I'm new to Wikipedia, but it seems like the first issue is for a decision to be made here. I'll respect whatever decision is made, but just want to make sure that the correct information is available to the decision makers. First of all, it's not factually correct that reviews are the only sources about my book, Our Political Nature (Prometheus/Random House 2013). There's a long list of media coverage here, which carefully documents the most important media coverage the book has received in 19 countries. This coverage includes reviews, interviews, articles, discussions on television and radio of which I'm a part, reports on television of which I'm not a part, coverage in academic journals, books, etc. Please take a moment to review the sources, which include media like the New York Times, MSNBC, several academic publications (Stanford, Georgetown, George Mason, etc.), China's CCTV, Brazil's GloboTV, Brazil's VEJA (one of largest weekly magazines in the world), Israel's TheMarker (Haaretz), NPR, and numerous other reputable sources. In particular, I'd like to point out that Scientific American columnist and Science Author Michael Shermer wrote a page about Our Political Nature, as part of a review of the current science on human political orientation, in his new book, here. I'd also like to point out that a world expert on the subject, Professor John Hibbing, who has also published a book on the same subject, has written a formal assessment of Our Political Nature in a double-blind, peer-reviewed academic journal, here. The other most important source, which is written by a science writer who's an expert on the topic, is Chris Mooney's discussion of the book in Washington Monthly, here. These are by far the most qualified people to objectively assess the importance of the book. I don't know any of them personally, nor did I know that they were writing about the book. NEXT, These are the reasons why the title of this article should remain the same: (1) the article originally mentioned my career as a political advisor and our greatest accomplishment, which is getting nearly twenty former heads of state to collaborate on a policy agenda for the Western Hemisphere, which the UN Secretary General said had never happened before in history. This is one of the most solidly documented facts about my career on the Internet, and it's relevant to my experience in writing the book, because no other book on this topic has been written by either an evolutionary anthropologist or a political advisor (and there's no other book that links measurable personality traits to quantitative measurements of fitness -- and no other book that tells the natural history of human political orientation). Moreover, there are other important parts of my career left out here, and what is in the article now about my career is factually incorrect. (2) More importantly, I think it's very unfair that my other contributions and writings apart from the book have been deleted from the article. These are articles in publications like the Washington Post, the Atlantic, and Bloomberg (this last article was translated into Chinese, Greek, Arabic, and Russian). Here is the list of my other contributions that was deleted, which I would like tot see restored to the article soon, under an "Other Writings" section -- or an external links section at the very least: My other writings on human political orientation discuss why this phenomenon shifts over the lifespan,[1] why gender inequality changes over the course of history,[2] how economics and demographics affect political spectrums,[3] how the heritability of political orientation has been determined, how birth order affects political attitudes,[4] and how assortative mating in the US contributes to political polarization.[5] I've also commented on evolutionary approaches to history.[6][4] These are only some of the major articles I've written in notable publications in English. I have numerous other publications in other languages. These are only the reasons why I think this article should be kept and why the name should not be changed. If there's any way a decision here could be made relatively quickly, I'd greatly appreciate it because it's not very nice to have a deletion tag on one's article. There are also many other ways in which this article could be made more accurate and complete, all with citations to solid references, which I'd very much like to help with, but I'm just limiting my points here to the deletion issue at hand. Many thanks for your consideration -- Avi Tuschman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 20 May 2015

References

  1. ^ Tuschman, Avi (17 April 2014). "Political Evolution: Why Do Young Voters Lean Left? It's in the Genes". Bloomberg Business. Retrieved 22 April 2015.
  2. ^ Tuschman, Avi (11 October 2013). "Malala's struggle has just begun". Salon.com. Retrieved 24 April 2015.
  3. ^ "Middle class expectations: managing social unrest". CCTV Global Business. 30 November 2013. Retrieved 22 April 2015.
  4. ^ a b Tuschman, Avi (5 April 2015). "The Evolutionary Origins of Politics: An Interview with Avi Tuschman". History News Network. Retrieved 22 April 2015.
  5. ^ Tuschman, Avi (28 February 2014). "Why Americans Are So Polarized: Education and Evolution". The Atlantic. Retrieved 22 April 2015.
  6. ^ Tuschman, Avi (13 March 2015). "How humans became human". Washington Post. Retrieved 24 April 2015.
  • Avi, Welcome to Wikipedia. Surely you can understand that the volunteers who edit this encyclopedia resent having it used as a self-promotion venue. However, I suspect that what you fail to see is the insult that you offer to people who edit, revise and judge the notability of articles on a wide range of complex topics when you not only write, but then arrogantly defend the notability of a patently inferior article. Surely you would not submit an op-ed that was written like a journal article, or write a Presidential speech in the style of a paper to be read at an Anthropology conference. Why, then, do you feel it is appropriate to come here and defend a badly written article? If you want an article on Wikipedia, do us the courtesy of taking the trouble to learn how WP articles are written and create for yourself a good one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to suspect that Tuschman and his book can support separate articles, but unless he shows that that a good article can be created out of reliable, published sources I will be forced to abandon that opinion. I am not sufficiently intrigued by his career to undertake the work of sifting through sources to determine that an article can be supported.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems that Tuschman is now trying to canvas people here, by telling them that an article on an amazing person is being deleted, see here. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to name of book; rewrite to avoid promotional tone. I saw the book author's invitation to comment here in several WikiProjects I participate in. The book is obscure, and the author more obscure. DGG has already commented that authors don't gain derivative notability by publishing one book. An article about the book would probably survive AfD, but would require careful rewriting to ensure that the article reflects what the mainstream reviews say about the book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WeijiBaikeBianji Could you link to those invitations? Thanks. This smacks of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Also, I highly doubt that the book itself meets the threshold for notability. But that's not the current discussion. LaMona (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*@LaMona: The project talk page notices I saw were on WikiProject Anthropology, WikiProject Psychology, and WikiProject Evolutionary Biology, all project talk pages I have on my watchlist (and not on any other project talk pages, as far as I can tell from that user's contribution history). I am not a wikilawyer, so I express no opinion about whether or not this was improper canvassing. The text of all three notices was "This article is up for deletion, if people want to have a look here [with a wikilink to this AfD discussion]." I personally don't mind notices with that level of generality to project talk pages if an AfD discussion might be of general interest to project participants. I mentioned this just to explain how I happened to join the discussion. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LaMona: I already warned them about canvassing by the way, so if they're guilty of canvassing, this might be an ANI issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per DGG - young scholar with one book. I will add that there have been two paid editors and an editor claiming to be Tuschman active at the article. I will be happy if we are able to delete this article and end all this pressure to violate WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DGG and Jytdog. One book, cited 8 times in G-scholar. I know we're supposed to be civil, but honestly, if this person is so smart you would think he could read and understand WP policies -- they aren't that difficult. That he then comes on and defends his own article is just ... too much for me. Is "neutral point of view" such a difficult concept for someone who writes about human behavior? LaMona (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bobby Jindal was an evolutionary biologist too. Keep it. SilverSurfingSerpant (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet comment struck. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument- why is this person good enough? Being an evolutionary biologist isn't enough to show notability. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The very fact that the subject of the article makes a full-court press to try and keep it tells me that it is not notable. The guy wrote one book that got some flash-in-the pan coverage. One book does not make someone a notable academic, and this book is even further from that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly so. The author not only found it necessary to create his own article, he hired a couple "paid editor" mercenary hacks to assist him with the inevitable delete nomination! Wikipedia needs to discourage this behavior with extreme prejudice. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - close this sucker, admins. he doesn't meet WP:GNG despite all the discussion above, and wikipedia is not WP:LINKEDIN.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, the clear consensus is to delete. If this person was notable, then they wouldn't have needed to hire 2 people, get involved themselves and then try to canvass more people to support them. Basically every editor who hasn't been paid or canvassed here says it should be deleted. Clearly he's got money to waste on trying to keep this vanity project, but that doesn't make him notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 30 May 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. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Santa Ana kidnapping case[edit]

2014 Santa Ana kidnapping case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly doesn't meet any standards for notability, as I haven't even heard of this case before. It sounds more like local-level news coverage. It is also poorly written, with no attempt by the creator or anyone else involved to fix it whatsoever. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, not guilty.... which guarantees there will be further legal proceedings. I don't think anyone could seriously suggest there will be no more news coverage. Unless, like the nominator, they're apparently neighbors with Buffalo Bill and think this is a pleasant human interest story for the local news. —МандичкаYO 😜 21:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly not notable. CitiV (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:UGLY.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:EVENT , long term notability is not established through persistent coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is still receiving coverage. Arrested guy claims he and girl were "in love", [41], [42], [43] He is going on trial. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per reliable sources provided be Wikimandia. Subject received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources therefore meeting WP:GNG. However, as an event, it must meet WP:PERSISTENCE; due to continuing coverage of the case, that is in-depth, the event meets PERSISTENCE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS and what I think should be a "What Wikipedia is Not" — NOTTRUECRIME. It is a little early to talk about "persistence" in 2015 about an event which happened in 2014. Talk to me in five years... Carrite (talk) 04:33, 6 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. Insufficient evidence that this is suitable for Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 15:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regeneration Who[edit]

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

Non-notable Dr. Who convention without significant third-party coverage. --Non-Dropframe talk 18:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, let me look up the article in the Baltimore Sun which covered this. It was covered quite a bit in the local news so if that's your only concern I will see if we can't update the article to address it with links to a couple permalink Baltimore Sun articles. Thanks.

TimeHorse (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The convention was mentioned in the Baltimore Sun here [44] and Kasterborous here [45]. Lois talk 22:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet vote struck --Non-Dropframe talk 23:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
    • @Lois Millard: So, just to be clear (and I'm genuinely asking, not trying to sound condescending whatsoever), you believe these two sources satisfy the guidelines found at WP:GNG? --Non-Dropframe talk 22:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Non-dropframe: I see what you are referring to now. I guess that I feel that getting a slew of press coverage isn't what makes a convention "notable" to me. I would argue that the mere fact that this convention was able to get a Skype Q&A with Tom Baker makes it notable. Also of note are the fact that the attendance reached 1600 the first year and the fact that it is run by Onezumi Events (who run Intervention as well). It appears that there may be room for exceptions to the guidelines, however, so I stand by my opinion. Lois talk 00:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Lois Millard: They are, indeed, guidelines rather than rules set in stone. Take a look at WP:EVENT that sets forth guidelines more specific to events. You'll notice that they're heavily based on the WP:GNG. Third-party coverage is extremely important to Wikipedia as it's not the source of first-hand information. Articles must contain references and references can only come through outside sources. I've been to a Dr. Who convention myself so please don't think I'm unsympathetic to your position. However, as interesting or unusual you may be of this opinion that this convention may be, limited third-party coverage may suggest otherwise. --Non-Dropframe talk 00:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it is mentioned in the guardian only in a passing user comment, not in the actual guardian content. the two examiner pieces that you kind of listed but did not link is because you cannot link them as the examiner is a blacklisted site not usable for anything except special page mentions about itself. and the others ... really you are putting them as reliable sources? if you really really really loosely apply, paste might squeek in as something that is not completely unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sounds like it's fun for the Whovians, but the article is a promotion, and the event has local coverage from an august newspaper, so it fails notability. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:35, 30 May 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. Michig (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Caryle Holloway, Sr.[edit]

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

I retrieved the obituary here which provides a lot of good career information but that's basically where it ends because my searches at News, Newspapers archive, Books, Highbeam, thefreelibrary and Newsbank all found nothing. He meets being elected to a notable group but there's no significant and in-depth coverage about him and lastly there's nowhere to move the article (the only linking pages are Deaths in 2000 and Holloway (surname)). SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Pretty much an unfilled bio for an early state legislator, and there isn't info., apparently. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: To explain my opinion above: if we can't find biographical material outside of an obituary or any history that explains the person at all, then the "article" will be a single fact. In that case, it is exactly the same in terms of information access to the public as having a redlink in a list of state legislators. If a "list" article says "Bob was in the House 18__ to 18__" and the "article" says the same thing, it won't matter if there is a notability guideline saying the person is notable or not. Others may vote reflexively on the basis of "guidelines" if they choose. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged for sourcing. The reason to keep, in addition to policy, is the expectation that someone may come along - a grad student, local historian, descendant, or Wikipedia bent on improving coverage of Florida politcians and add reliably sourced material to the page. It happens every day. Moreover, I assume that the basic facts on the page are correct, but the url to which they are sourced has changed. that's why it's best ot just tag for sourcing. Also a politician form 1980 is not an "early politician". Early, for the Florida legislature, would be the Buchanan administration.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe they pass WP:NPOLITICIAN, as they represented a statewide legislature. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Confirmed state representative and senator passing WP:POLITICIAN.[46][47] I just did a cursory search of Google's newspaper archive. I'll do a more involved search later. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Serving in the Florida State Senate is WP:NOTABLE. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Sock comment struck. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment. I am leaning "keep" based on the number of GNews hits.[48] Is his middle name spelled properly in the article? - Location (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP see WP:POLITICIAN "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". Even if ther was nothing more to say about him than the fact that he was elected, we would keep the stub.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article definitely needs sourcing improvement, but a person who served in a state legislature is always a valid article topic per WP:NPOL #1. And at least 49 separate Google News hits do come up for him under the form "Vernon Holloway" (and a couple more if you use the middle initial "C."), and I suspect that the same will happen in other databases as well — I can almost guarantee that the nominator came up dry because they searched on his full name instead of the forms that were actually going to get us somewhere. Flag for refimprove, and move the article to Vernon Holloway per WP:COMMONNAME, but keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:47, 3 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.

Shynola Monzulla[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Esquivalience t 02:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inez Storer[edit]

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

Poorly referenced BLP I dream of horses (T) @ 04:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I do not believe that being poorly referenced is a reason for deletion; however, not having significant coverage in reliable sources would be. I do not see many returns in Google News; however, Google Books returns quite a few. Not sure at this point.--TTTommy111 (talk) 06:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Thanks to everyone for digging. Change comment to keep after reviewing the additional information. --TTTommy111 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: She appears to be arts faculty (if only occasional) and a working artist. Her work gets noticed when it's exhibited, but I rather suspect she needs to be talked about -- a retrospective or a discussion of her place in an arts development -- to generate the RS that will satisfy notability. If those are found, then consider my opinion moot. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to keep now that additional sources and references have been added that are independent and aimed at the artist herself, rather than actions by the artist. Even without the new material, the piece was nearly a keep. Now it is a clear keep, in my view. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete Keep after added refs. Her work appears in many gallery listings, but I can find no RS about her. LaMona (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets 4(d) of WP:ARTIST as she is "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". I've added some reliable sources and think that the article now meets WP:GNG criteria. gobonobo + c 03:25, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a couple of sources from HighBeam that discuss her work. There are other sources there, but they seem like brief mentions. I don't have an opinion right now as to whether or not this adds up to enough. I don't know anything about the notability of artists or art galleries. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gobonobo's argument. Having works in the permanent collection of several major public collections is a strong indication of notability. Considering her age, there is likely to be offline coverage about her, in addition to the online coverage already found. Sionk (talk) 02:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being included in the permanent collections of six museums notable enough for their own articles is good enough for WP:ARTIST, I think. The article has been improved considerably since nomination, but this information was already present in the article at nomination time. The retrospective Hithladaeus asks for is there now, in the additional reading section of the article, and there is also plenty of in-depth newspaper coverage both of her and her art to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein and Gobonobo's criteria. Plenty of reliable sources and news coverage. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:51, 3 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) 18:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ruebyn Richards[edit]

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

British TKD competitor currently ranked 38th [49] and he made it to the round of 32 at the last world championships, but I don't believe either of those is enough to show notability. ALso lacks the significant coverage to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Don't believe he meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:MANOTE. The European championships are not the highest level, any more than those Iranian wrestlers were notable for medaling at the Asian championships (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morteza Rezaei Ghaleh). Coverage is routine sports reporting and fails GNG.Astudent0 (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I see is routine sports coverage and it appears his highest ranking ever was 28th. That was right after the 2013 world championships. Currently ranked 2nd among British TKD competitors (29th overall) in the Olympic rankings so he has a shot at making the 2016 Olympics, which would clearly make him notable, but assuming he makes the 2016 Olympics is a leap of faith since only 16 competitors qualify. I have no objections to saving the article in user space pending future results. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Open Lighting Project[edit]

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

non notable group/project (Probably qualifies for CSD?) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Open Lighting Project a non-notable group/project?
1) We've linked to several trade magazines that we are mentioned or featured in.
2) We are also an organization that helps test and write ANSI standards for PLASA that are used worldwide. This is mentioned in the article and sourced as well.
3) We've been selected and participated in Google's Summer of Code for 3 years. Nightrune 17:38 PM 18 May 2015 (UTC)

—Мандичка What specifically does it need more of? or less of? Higher quality links or more third party links? Nightrune

  • Delete: No evidence that this meets WP:GNG. What does this need? Links to reliable, third-party sources -- media sources, particularly. Has this project been featured in the tech sections of major newspapers or magazines, or in major industry journals? What we're seeing instead are blogs, the subject's own sites, and a whole lot of non-qualifying sources. Nha Trang Allons! 17:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nightrune The Linux Journal article is a decent one. The two LSA ones would be except they aren't about OLP, they are about other products - both have a mere one sentence mention. Find two or three more that are written by 3rd parties in media publications, and that are actually about OLP, and you could get people to change their minds. If they don't exist, then it may be that not enough people have 'noticed' it, which is what our WP:NOTABILITY standard is all about. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the pointers Gaijin42 I believe there are more third party links we could add, and other articles I know that soon to be published. Nightrune 00:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There might or might not be articles currently in press. The problem is that right now, there is little to work with (WP:CRYSTAL). The only mentions I found are about the OPL being accepted at Google Summer Code. Tigraan (talk) 11:11, 1 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. Overall consensus herein is for deletion. North America1000 22:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceBob InvaderPants[edit]

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

Non-notable episode. Can't explain why it deserves an encyclopedia article of its own. It's been PRODed but creator opposed it. Should be deleted or redirected to SpongeBob SquarePants (season 9) — Mediran [talk] 01:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete SpongeBobCruft; episode not scheduled and as per Nick's perplexing strategy of making mere episode premieres into Super Bowl-like events, probably just in the end a regular episode premiere. No redirect as only source is a random German fansite that could've easily made this all up.Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I miss getting TV Guide. Oh, wait. No, I don't. No claims of notability. It's an upcoming episode, apparently, and the article content is about as vast as a newspaper listing. Hithladaeus (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment TV listings at least have to be sourced by the network at the very least via press release; this seems like a wild guess by the 'reliable' 'SpongeBuddy Mania' (which basically exists as a SpongeBob newsfeed) based on the title alone ('it has to involve space and invaders...hmm...maybe they make contact with ET's? That's good enough.') Nate • (chatter) 03:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Frank P. Savoy Jr[edit]

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

Non-notable person, they founded a non-notable hospital, but fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In addition, this bio is pretty promotional too- I've tried cleaning it up, but it's still promotional, and the COI editor keeps trying to repromotionalise it. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No evidence of notability, founding a small hospital in a small town is not enough to make someone notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Savoy209 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)There is plenty of evidence of notability.The article is not promotional nor do I have a bias towards the subject because of my profile name. If it would help,I could easily make a new page with another account so the name would be different as I do not want there to be a COI issue. I was also not aware that I was deleting and re editing some of the changes that have been made by you guys.Once again,I apologize and am trying very hard to be compliant. --Savoy209 (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Also,I can understand that my article needs more citations for a verification but "Article is written like an advertisement",really?I would appreciate it if you guys would allow me to make my own edits to my own article and after I'm done you can tell me exactly what needs to be fixed and taken out because after the previous deletions from "Savoy Medical Center" and "Savoy Memorial Hospital",the article was nearly unrecognizable.You guys might not think so but to the people of Evangeline Parish and all of Louisiana. I'm not blowing the claims about the subject out of proportion either. Bare with me,it took me along time to make that article. --Savoy209 (talk) 02:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)and just because you weren't able to find any "notable" evidence of high notoriety online doesn't mean that the subject isn't a notable person.Just ask any person from Evangeline Parish or St.Landry Parish.Not that you can anyway.Just hear me out,listen to where I'm coming from.Please take some time to rethink your claims and the deletion notices that are on my article.Please do not take action to delete it,please.Thank you.[reply]

Savoy209, the article isn't "[your] own article" it is Wikipedia's article one you click submit, and anyone and everyone is free to edit it. I posted some samples of what I considered promotional languge on the talk page when I applied the "advert" tag.If you can provide published reliable sources about Dr Savoy, please do so. This discussion will be open for at elast 7 days, and offline sources such as newspapers are acceptable. "Ask any person" is not helpful, however. DES (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft namespace, and allow improvement there, via WP:AFC. There may be a valid and useful article hidden here, if additional sources can be found and the test improved. But it isn't yet visible. DES (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ,now that I know that offline sources are reliable I will provide them.Within the next 4 days I will add images and photos too once my account is confirmed --Savoy209 (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savoy209 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Savoy209, Do please read our guideline on reliable sources to better understand what sort of sources are considered reliable. On images, please remember that they should be in the public domain or released under a compaltely free license. Well some are used under fair use, but Wikipedias conditions for that are tight. In any case, images don't do much to establish notability, published text sources are usually more important. DES (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion as to whether this article should be deleted. However, if it is kept it will need to be moved to Frank P. Savoy Jr. per MOS:TITLE and MOS:CREDENTIAL, honorific and professional credentials should not be included in the title or body of the article before the subjects name. You can, however, discuss these credentials within the article. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I would have moved it, but it's not worth moving it if it's going to get deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And moving during an AfD discussion is discouraed, because it tends to cause more confusion than it is worth, except in the case of a very badly mistitled article, where the title is relevant to the reasons put forward for deletion. DES (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither his activities nor the sources rise to the level to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG. I just plugged it in to the mighty Newspapers.com search engine, targeting Louisiana. Got nothin'... Carrite (talk) 04:37, 6 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) 18:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Buddhism[edit]

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

Lack of notability VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As nominator.VictoriaGraysonTalk 01:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to actually be about a very small group of very limited notability. About the equivalent of the "Independent church in the trailer park" sort of thing. Montanabw(talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I like the criticism; it shows the developments in the west, and the investigation of new forms of Buddhism which try to derive authority from established traditons. Very illustrative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - copyright violation. Almost the entire article is text or prayers already available on this subject. There is no earlier version to roll back to and no indication this meets GNG. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:The page on Celtic Buddhism provides some interesting although scant information on that new hybrid movement. Rather than being deleted, it should be marked as stub. Hopefully some knowledgeable editor will expand it. --Elnon (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Celts were not Buddhists. Present-day inhabitants of Ireland and Scotland are not Celts, although some of them are of Celtic ethnic derivation. There is no compelling justification for this novel discussion. Delete as basically OR in the perfect form and a non-notable group in its present form. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG; little coverage from reliable sources. Esquivalience t 03:02, 30 May 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. There is some disagreement herein about whether or not the depth of coverage of the sources about the subject are sufficient to qualify a standalone article, and also disagreement regarding the overall reliability of the sources. Ultimately, no consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. Of note is that as of this close, the article is no longer an unreferenced BLP. North America1000 23:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parapadsorn Disdamrong[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced BLP (no sources, just an external link that is related to the subject) The Banner talk 20:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unable to find any in depth coverage from reliable sources. Subject appears to fail WP:BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject has won a national beauty pageant, and then appeared at two international pageants, and was first runner-up at one of them. I added two reliable sources, the Bamgkok Post and Matichon Online. Kraxler (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Routine smattering of press release style coverage for appearing in a minor pageant. Tarc (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source, Miss Supranational is one of the major five beauty pageants of the world. Also, in the absence of a guideline for national beauty queens, I'd like to say that "in-depth" coverage for beauty queens should consist in the publication of their images, not of written texts, because they are notable for their beauty, not for their utterings. Kraxler (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the organiser is likely to say that its pageant is very important. But the fact is that the article is already deleted five times. And even for beauty queens WP:RS should be taken into account. The Banner talk 20:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, Global Beauties organizes the Miss Grand Slam cyber pageant, they do not organize the Miss Supranational or any other live pageant, but they say that Miss Supranational and four other pageants are the five major beauty pageants of the world. Global Beauties is a RS for beauty pageants. Wikipedia is based on sources, not on the opinions of the editors. Second, could you explain what "article is already deleted five times"? Not this one, it looks like being the first nomination. Anyway, you nominated it as an unsourced BLP, and it's not unsourced anymore. I suggest you withdraw the nomination. Kraxler (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Miss Supranational, that seems to be the article in question. It was prodded in 2010, then mass deleted with other stuff because of the creator, then deleted as copyvio. In 2012, it was recreated and passed AfD "no consensus" with 4 keep votes. In 2014, it was renominated at AfD and deleted with almost no input, and later speedied G4. That makes it rather pompous to say "was deleted already five times". Fact is that it was kept once, and was deleted once after a rather deficient discussion. Besides the pageant was first held around 2009, and may have attained notability under the Wiki guidelines in the meanwhile. I'll check it out. Kraxler (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See (in-depth) coverage of "Miss Supranational 2014" (14,200 hits at Google News) in The Times of India, also saying that it is a "prestigious international beauty pageant", in the Business Standard (Mumbai), R7 (Grupo Record, Brazil), Rappler (Philippines), Zeibiz, Inquirer.net and so on... Kraxler (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Global Beauties is connected with the subject of the article. That casts serious doubt on claims to being RS. While an OP can withdraw a nomination anytime s/he wants, all it does is remove their delete vote unless there are no other outstanding delete votes. In this case there is, and I stand by mine. I am not seeing enough in depth coverage from RS sources to meet GNG or BASIC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are three mainstream news sources in the article, talking about the event/person. Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:Independent sources#Examples and tell me how Global Beauties is connected to Parapadsorn Disdamrong: is it (herself), (her) family members, (her) friends, (her) employer, or (her) employees? Thanks in advance. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, see this: Miss Grand International 2014]. That is by now deleted six times as advertising and/or not notable. And she did not win that competition, so no need to hammer it in.The Banner talk 16:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine where you got the notion that I "hammered this in". We know she ended up in the Top 10, it's in the article. Anyway, you are quite mistaken: Miss Grand International 2014 was deleted once after a discussion, the other five were procedural deletions, mostly for lack of content, in all those cases the question whether the topic was notable or not was not debated. Besides, I'd rather you stay on-topic. Everytime I refute your arguments you throw another tidbit of info in the room, instead of answering the previous argument. That's a very poor debating style. Please also check out WP:SCNR, it's really good advice. Kraxler (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kraxler, per your suggestion I went back and rechecked all of the sources and external links. The coverage of the subject is at best trivial and in passing. IMO it does not come close to that required by GNG and BASIC. I will also add WP:1E to the equation. Under the circumstances I have to stand by my delete vote. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She has appeared in four events, won one, almost won another and scored high in the other two. That's a fact. Kraxler (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of which rings the notability bell. Beyond which that sounds like a pretty run of the mill resume for contestants in this sort of field. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We're up against some people promoting beauty pageant winners, and there isn't any established hierarchy or guideline on the subject that makes the decision simple. For the .en Wikipedia, we have some reason to be wary. Think about how many separate pageant confederations there are in the U.S., the U.K., and then how informal the "Miss Universe," "Miss World," etc. pageants are organized. The burden of proof is going to have to be on the article to establish notability, because even if we were dealing with a pageant winner of an unambiguously national competition, there's question about whether being a pageant winner is notable by itself. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're up against people crusading against beauty pageant winners. They downplay their achievement (calling national events "minor", and calling in-depth editorial news coverage "press releases") and renominate articles for deletion that have been kept several times before (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Globe International (2nd nomination)). But you're right in saying that there's no specific guideline, but there should be one. I think I'll propose one next week, to avoid another time-sink for the community. Kraxler (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Kraxler, if I might, to prevent the confusion, it might be well to work with validating and establishing the pageant circuits first. When one of those is confirmed as a clear pass, then a given iteration of that pageant would be if that national iteration has strong funding and a consistent host. Then it would be possible to have an article on the individual pageants. That may never get to the point, though, where a winner of a pageant is considered notable for that alone, since winning on "Jeopardy!" or coming in third in a national track meet isn't. People have good reason to default toward "delete": there are loads of independent pageants, and rich men and drinks companies run loads of them. Winning "Miss Pneumatic Tire 1936" might be due to being one of ten women working at the Goodyear plant, while winning "Miss America 1936" would arguably have required a great deal more, in terms of accomplishment. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To get a clear position on the pageants would certainly help. To establish a guideline would centralise discussion in one place. In the meanwhile, Miss Grand Thailand (nominated for deletion) is/was affiliated with Miss Earth, Miss Globe International, Miss Grand International and Miss Tourism International, all existing articles. Miss Globe International was just kept for the 3rd time, while The Banner tried to lecture a former arb on sources. Miss Grand Thailand is also affiliated with Miss Supranational which is described by The Times of India (the major newspaper of India) as a "prestigios international beauty pageant" (link above), and is counted by The Times of Beauty (an independent news outlet specialising in this segment) among the "four best beauty pageants in the planet" (link below). Kraxler (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Routine press release-like coverage is not an indicator of notability, nor is winning a minor pageant. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Major newspapers/TV stations cover events because they think their readers/viewers are interested in them. And that establishes notability. This one is certainly a major celebrity in Thailand. Kraxler (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should be able to add multiple independent sources. But what you added was just a passing mention and a related thingy, no sources conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should be able to answer the question which Ad Orientem did not answer: Please see WP:Independent sources#Examples and tell me how Global Beauties is connected to Parapadsorn Disdamrong: is it (herself), (her) family members, (her) friends, (her) employer, or (her) employees? Thanks in advance. Kraxler (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are the first one not to recognize a website dedicated to pageants and its contestants as not being related to a contestant of a pageant. The Banner talk 23:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You better answer my question, guidelines exist for a purpose. Here iyt is again: How is Global Beauties connected to Parapadsorn Disdamrong: is it (herself), (her) family members, (her) friends, (her) employer, or (her) employees [as expressly required at WP:Independent sources]?
+1. Unless I misread something, this is the same org that promoted the pageants she participated in. The source coverage is trivial and incidental and thus simply fails to ring the notability bell. Period. End of story. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you misread something. Global Beauties is a site which reports on beauty pageants, like The Rolling Stone reports on music. They promoted a cyber pageant in which the subject finished in the Top 10, the placing is determined by the public who votes over the internet (that's why it is called a "cyber pageant", no physical venue). The ref is used to establish the fact, in that case it is a WP:Reliable source because I assume they know the result of their own pageant. For all other pageants, it is an WP:Independent source because they report on this but are not involved in the organizatuon or have any other financial interest in any particular pageant. It would be like saying the New York Times is related to anybody they talk about because the paper earns money with peddling news, and these people are subject of the news. Anyway, I'm still waiting for The Banner's answer to my question. Kraxler (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or what about The Times of Beauty which says "The Times of Beauty offers annual coverage of the four best beauty pageants in the planet: Miss World, Miss Universe, Miss International and Miss Supranational. The website and its owner are not related in any form or manner whatsoever with these international pageants..." Kraxler (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, Excuse me, but the very first one I linked is not "press release-like coverage" but a lengthy profile on her. The second one couldn't be called a PR either... Did you bother to click on any of the links? —МандичкаYO 😜 17:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your inability to identity actual reliable sources is beyond my ability to assist you with, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess I just must be reliable source-identification challenged, and surely in need of your impressive abilities. So why don't you explain why this Thai newspaper is not a reliable source, for starters? —МандичкаYO 😜 18:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided by Мандичка above seem sufficient. Thai Rath is the number 1 newspaper in Thailand. Prachachat is a major business newspaper. TNEWS is a news cable/satellite TV. In the article itself, I see Bangkok Post (top 2 English-language newspaper) and Matichon (another popular newspaper). Prachachat and Matichon are mentioned in this article Khao Sod. This link from Thai Rath shows that she has 9 news coverage from the No. 1 newspaper [55]. So it's not just one news and then quickly forgotten. If you cannot read Thai, try Google translate. Then you can distinguish between news that briefly mention the person or an article writen solely about her. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 11:00, 6 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Calderwood[edit]

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

I cannot find coverage which would support a sensible claim to notability nonsense ferret 01:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but without prejudice. Could be a proper article could be written about her; but this ain't it. Currently, there are no reliable sources, just a link to her profile on her label's website, and to an article mostly about somebody else (see WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS). --Orange Mike | Talk 01:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 01:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per user:Orangemike: Professionally, she might cross over to notable enough in the future, but the article doesn't establish such a thing. An Aria award would be something, but.... Hithladaeus (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ARIA nominee. WP:MUSIC#8. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Addressed concern of lack of citations with the addition of a number of references. Also provided proof of nominations of her album As Night Falls to ARIA awards in category Best World Music Album. werldwayd (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't think this amounts to much in the way of establishing notability. There is a product catalogue, couple of bloggish online magazine things, a brief mention in passing re the waterboys and an article about the waterboys that doesn't as far as I can see mention her name. There's no indication that her nomination for this award got anything in the way of independent coverage. Ok there's a profile in ABC, but that isn't enough in my view to meet nmusic. --nonsense ferret 13:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as there isn't much significant and notable coverage to establish independent notability and my searches (News, Books, browser, thefreelibrary and highbeam) only found this ABC link. I also think there isn't enough to suggest moving elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominated for an Aria, so meets WP:MUSIC. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In addition to an ARIA nomination her album charted on the ARIA Classical Albums chart link for entry peak at 15. I have place more references in the article so it now shows she satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:MUSIC. The Parramatta Advertiser article indicates further coverage, stating "The Brisbane singer has perfect pitch and is receiving acclaimed reviews internationally with requests from BBC Wales and Radio Voce Spazio Italy." duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is loved for its vastness of coverage of pop culture, I find THIS piece in Onya Magazine. Not much more traction to get this past GNG but I put the link forward just in case. Carrite (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Album has charted, and lots of coverage. Passes WP:MUSIC. Kraxler (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satsifies WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 07:10, 8 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) 06:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Missimo[edit]

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

Non-notable person who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Never played in a fully-professional league, and the article appears to be part of a promotional campaign by a bunch of connected editors. Sources in the article are either primary, unreliable, do not work or, in some cases, don't even exist. There's a claim about him playing nationally in a futsal tournament, but I'm not aware of that conveying notability, and even if it does, the source present does not verify the claim. The FIFA link in the article may be an intentional misdirection; the real one does verify a U17 appearance for the USA, but that doesn't convey any notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears, from the writing, to be vanity ("known as 'D'"). The article doesn't assert notability. A single professional season, then going to TCU for grad school isn't really going to make the person discussed enough to require (not "want") an encyclopedia article. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ADMASQ, and they fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Copy and paste everything from above. Nothing in reliable sources to support the article. --TTTommy111 (talk) 06:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable from these sources. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Nixo[edit]

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

This is, quite frankly, a complete and total mess. I'm not sure if it counts as a G3 or G11, but it's close to both. What I do know is that this article was previously deleted as Nicholas Efthimiou, which was an article that was different enough for this not to technically qualify under G4 either. Basically, it's an article on a non-notable footballer and businessman who fails GNG and NFOOTY, and there seems to be some kind of spam campaign being run to promote him, off and on. I can only assume it was created under "Nicholas Nixo" in an attempt to evade detection - but unfortunately for the OP, that failed. It's worth noting that the sources in the article are pretty much all either hopelessly unreliable, primary, flat-out don't work, or make no mention of this person. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Go Tarheels and all that, but this player does not establish notability, and the article is about a person with a different name than that which the article bears. Pretty clearly an effort at evasion at least, esp. given some of the links. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looking at the history, I'm concerned enough about three of the accounts that I have filed this SPI. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 01:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had thoughts about this, and honestly I agree with the above reasoning. This player isn't notable after all and there are little to no third party reliable sources here to establish any significance. The title was also obscure at first, which is why I changed it. Tinton5 (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps ironically, I came across the original Efthimiou article in a similar way. I cleaned up some fluff, and realized that there was no real notability there. In fact, had one of the sockfarm (they've all been blocked now) not vandalized the previous AfD, I'd never have spotted the two promotional articles they'd made! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:31, 30 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2015_May_30&oldid=1142624860"