Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 September	16 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to America's Test Kitchen. Overall consensus is to redirect, Anyone wanting to Merge should obviously start a discussion on the TP (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Hays[edit]

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

Non notable. The editor in chief of the magazine would be notable, but managing editor is a subsidiary position. There are no third party sources except a local newspaper DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find anything out there about Hays and the source in the article isn't about Hays, but about stuffing - she was brought in to give her view on the topic. While this would mark her as a reliable source on the topic of cooking, being a reliable source does not automatically mean that she would be considered notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to America's Test Kitchen more likely than deleting because I'm very familiar with this and she's an important member of America's Test Kitchen. My searches found results instantly at Books and News but nothing for a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to America's Test Kitchen, on which she is featured. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "featured" -- a/c the article on the show, she is one of the ten test cooks who appear on a rotating basis DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge as per Bearian above. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 22:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lolly Badcock[edit]

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

Scene awards dont count so now fails Pornbio. A mention on 1 page of a book doesnt cut it for the GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what scene awards? 2007 UK Adult Film and Television Awards - Most Outrageous Female Performance is individual award. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- female performance is clearly related to a specific activity - which makes it a scene awrd. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subtropical:man, don't waste your time on this mess you cannot get anywhere with these folks. They are sex-negative, if they had their way there would be no porn actors on this site. They're just "T&A/big knockers" to these folks, it's a majority female industry, so they want it gone. we had decent bio-standards before where if you were nominated for the biggest awards in your industry you got in {like any other industry) but they badgered it down to the equivalent of winning the Oscar award for best actor. They get by on the loophole that porn will not get reported on in mainstream media and they can play the magazines that do report on them off as "trade magazines" even though other industries trade magazines (Billboard) are fine. Can't believe legitimate Japanese articles (porn is mainstream in Japan) are being deleted because people are searching rōmaji and can't find anything. Bias, i can't even stand porn but they are the only ones getting un-warrented mass deletions (other then criminals). GuzzyG (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - individual award.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Most Outrageous Performance" is a scene award, and in any event there's no basis for claiming it's a significant category. Even more important, the UKAFTAs generally fail the "well-known"/significant standard; they were a short-lived, for-profit awards ceremony that were noted for the publicity stunts they staged to promote the ceremonies rather than any stature in the industry. Comments from one award-winner are telling: director James Bennett described the awards as "amateurish and desperate" and "staged and insignificant"; he also reported that "it seemed that all it took to win awards was a few phone calls to the right people and an advance payment for a full table at the event".[1] UKAFTAs also went to videos that hadn't been released at the time they won (another sign the awards were pay-for-play) and, in at least one case, for a video that never existed (try to find Jamie Brooks's 2007 award-quality performance in "Cream Bunz"!) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Try Wikia. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flick Shagwell[edit]

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

Fails Pornbio and gng. Scene awards no longer count. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO with only scene-related award wins. Appearing in an award-winning feature is not enough to satisfy PORNBIO criterion #2. Fails WP:GNG with only passing mentions by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the accurate assessments by the nom and by Gene93k. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alys Masters[edit]

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

I wish this young cyclist success but for now this is WP:TOOSOON - there is no indication that she meets WP:GNG or WP:NCYC. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing even minimally good (mostly primary and cycling groups links). SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No coverage found whatsoever. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Farmall Cub. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cub Lo-Boy[edit]

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

Insufficient information and notability to have a fully separate page from Farmall Cub (i.e. topic is sufficiently covered already). Primefac (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect May as well redirect it to Farmall Cub. clpo13_(talk) 06:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Clpo13. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment technically my vote is for redirect, but since it was recently created and has what appears to be two SPAs working on it, I figured consensus would be better than an edit war in case delete was the final option. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as there's obviously not much for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Soft delete. The article may be restored by any administrator on request. --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zazaro TV[edit]

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

Unable to find sources why this is significant or important. The web URL provided in the original edit no longer works (another link is zazaro.com, and here it is from several years ago), and there's a Youtube channel, likely not enough. TheGGoose (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another really old article. Anything that has stuck around this long liekly deserves at least one comment. Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is a licensed TV broadcast station see here, it was approved by the Dutch Media Commission in 2004. But it is doubtful whether they are still on the air. They say that they are a TV and internet channel, but web searches don't turn up any link to their own channel/site. Kraxler (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be&D[edit]

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

It may've been associated with notables but I'm finding anything to suggest improvement including better sourcing, with the best results here, here, here and here. Pinging past editors @Meatsgains, Mean as custard, and Hmains:. SwisterTwister talk 23:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been here since 2006. Can we PLEASE get some commentary? Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I'll freely admit that I'm not an expert in this field, but I was able to find this and this fairly easily which may be reliable coverage for the topic of fashion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

DGG For the sake of consensus, would you comment? SwisterTwister talk 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Further good referencing would be necessary for notability. And there is not even the most basic information: sales figures, number of employees, location of business. Our rule is NOT DIRECTORY, but this is not even up to the minimal standards of a directory. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs 2 and 3 and the "official site" are dead links, web searches turn up sales outlets, and the occasional press release, notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter who uses these handbags, no in-depth coverage of the company anywhere, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article's been expanded since nomination, Consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Akmerkez[edit]

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

Disputed PROD on a mall because of the size. Can't find any reliable sources(fails WP:GNG) and after some searching the best I could find was this[2] indicating that the size mentioned is actually the total area and the total gross leasable area is only 357,846 square feet. Me5000 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had noticed this had been improved and I suppose it's more acceptable now. Delete for now and WP:TNT with a new start and it may be somewhat well known locally and searches found results at News and Books (Books were mostly Guides and News were in Turkish, not English)/so this may need familiar attention especially for translating. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've copyedited, expanded and provided reliable refs. Pls recheck. CeeGee 12:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist is unusual, but done on basis of the last comment. Courcelles (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be properly sourced per WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources are independent and describe the subject in-depth, article looks good now, quite informative. Although the pertaining WikiProject has some standards about size, they are not absolute, either way, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS Kraxler (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Djair Miranda Garcia[edit]

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

This is just a coach who has not done anything to be considered notable under WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only a trainer, not even close to being a manager and did not appeared for any professional clubs as a player. MYS 77 ^✉ 20:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Biderman[edit]

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

Not clear why this person is notable, fails WP:BIO. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. JMHamo (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as unless this can get familiar attention, improvement and is confirmed as notable and well-known to an extent, my searches found results here, here, here and here, I'm not seeing any obvious worthwhile signs of improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete He seems NN, no major accomplishments, and does not have outside coverage in reliable media.--Jayrav (talk) 05:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azharuddin Mallick[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD contested as the player has signed for Mohun Bagan and that he will eventually play for the team in the I-League and AFC Cup... that is most likely true but for now he is not and the league and cup don't start till 2016 so this article should not be created till then. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. A case of WP:TOOSOON at best. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article says that he has played 5 I-league games for Mohun Bagan in the infobox. Spiderone 07:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems from the article that these are in the nonFPL Calcutta Football League, not the I-League. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Fenix said, if you check his soccerway, he has yet to play in the I-League and is thus not fully-professional yet. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, makes sense now, thanks. In that case I vote delete. Spiderone 19:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've convinced! --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kury (band)[edit]

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

Tagged for lack of refs since 2008, and for notability since Oct 2014. May not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). Edison (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominated for multiple Fryderyk Awards, winning one. Win: Album roku - muzyka alternatywna (Album of the Year - Alternative). Nominated: Piosenka roku (song of the year), Grupa roku (group of the year), Teledysk roku (The video of the year). [3]. P.O.L.O.V.I.R.U.S appears to have sold over 30 thousand copies which would make it platinum. Sources [4]. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received a well-known and significant award, and there are lots of sources in Polish, see here, here, a review of POLOVIRUS, another review of POLOVIRUS, another review of POLOVIRUS, etc... Kraxler (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davie Cattenach[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable athlete. Quis separabit? 19:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:ATHLETE, having played in the top division in Scotland for Celtic, including an appearance in European competitions. Still receiving news coverage forty years later. Also discussed in this book. Please consider WP:BEFORE. Number 5 7 08:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number 57. Passes WP:ATHLETE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Livingston Public Schools. Consensus is that the sources provided by Z22 are not enough to establish notability for this school. Swarm ♠ 22:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heritage Middle School[edit]

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

This middle school article with no clear claim to notability should be redirected (again) to Livingston Public Schools. It was previously redirected here in 2007, it still has only routine coverage; the redirect should be restored.. Jacona (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that this is the first nomination for this particular school. The previous nomination in 2007 was for another school with the same name located in a different state. The 2007 nomination was concluded with deletion of the article. The current article which is for this school was created in 2009 and it has no relationship to the other school that had its article deleted in 2007. Therefore, this nomination should be considered at its own merits without any relationship to the previous nomination. As for the supporting reasons to keep this article, I will put a separate entry below this comment. Z22 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:NSCHOOL contains in that guideline, we can either use general notability guideline or the guideline contained in WP:ORG, or both. This article uses the WP:ORG to establish notability. In the WP:ORG we can either use the primary criteria or alternate criteria. In this case, we use the alternate criteria which the school has to satisfy both:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

When considering the scale, the consideration should be given to "the organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization." Those are some of factors that can help demonstrate whether the scope of school activities is national.

Below are the references that can be used to confirm that this school meet both #1 and #2. Each of which uses the major achievement at national scale as the justification to meet #1, and the references are from independent and reliable sources.

FemGineers program of the school was on the '20 to Watch' of 2013 by the National School Boards Association [5]
School was highlighted in the Magna Awards by American School Board Journal [6][7] The awards are the national level. American School Board Journal also included in the document with a "significant coverage" about how the local school board got involved with the development of the technology program and the school, how the lab was funded by the board, how the schools started STEM focus for girls, etc.
Major accomplishments in national competitions: TSA National Conference and Tests of Engineering Aptitude, Mathematics, and Science (TEAMS) National Ranking
The school represented New Jersey region in the National Future City competition and brought home the Region of the Year award.

Additionally, we can also use the general guideline for notability. The article satisfies the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Some of the references in the above demonstrate significant coverage of the school. The following are additional reliable sources that cover some details of the school. All are independent of the subject:

New Jersey School Board Association has the school in the "A+ Ideas, Programs and Practices" in the category of STEM Education with the detailed description of the program at school.
NPR article picked two schools to show examples of how schools in New Jersey was handling sport program cut in the 2010 budget crisis. This school was one of those. The Star-Ledger (largest circulated newspaper in NJ) also had a detailed coverage of the problem and the solution of the school.
The Star-Ledger had an extensive coverage of the school's participation in the 2010 Future City competition.
Classroom Closeup, the 12-time Emmy award-winning TV show, had 4 segments to feature the school programs.

-- Z22 (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect again. Restore the redirect and full protect it. There is nothing that makes this school out of the ordinary and there is a popular misconception on Wikipedia that a plethora of sources automatically adds up to notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure whether it necessary has plethora of sources. But we should also focus the consideration on things that are not ordinary about this school's programs. The school programs are highlighted as a model for other schools by 3 different entities (A+ practices by NJ School Board, only a handful of schools have that; A winner of the national level Magna Awards by American School Board Journal, only dozens of school programs in the US are awarded each year; and 4 programs were featured on the 12 Emmy Award winning 30-minute TV show on innovative projects). I think by these alone made the school to go beyond the "ordinary" gauge. Please discuss whether ordinary schools are highlighted at this level. Z22 (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No major publicity about the school winning the awards/competitions. I'm sure one could find dozens, if not hundreds of MS level competitions, winning any combination of them doesn't make the school notable. They may be "rare", as in not many schools have won them, but that doesn't make something wiki-notable either. It has not been determined which MS competition/award would make a school notable, but it's safe to say that most of them, including the ones mentioned, do not. There are many good middle schools out there, this is just one of them. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about winning a combination of arbitrary national awards does not make it notable. And also I just want to point out that notability is nothing to do with which schools are "good", it is just about being notable. My point is that we should really look into them without dismissing too quickly. WP:ORG guideline on notability has it that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." The coverage in particular is about how this school addresses the gender equality issue of the STEM workforce. The American School Board Journal published a review (certainly not just a list of bullet points, etc. so it is a subject of significant coverage by definition) of Heritage Middle School of the finding that girls who participate in STEM competitions in the middle school level will continue to pursue the higher level math and science courses at the high school level, and the school has made the increased percentage of participation of girls in STEM subjects. Also another regional media (regional media is allowed in WP:ORG), Classroom Close-up, featured 4 programs at the school. The guideline also states that the consideration should be given to "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Certainly, the review indicates "demonstrable effects" of improving the gender inequality issue in STEM education which has society, science and education implications. Is there any reasons that the given explanation fails the WP:ORG guideline? Z22 (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Z22, yes. From the sources you gave above: [8] WP:ORGDEPTH "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" does not establish notability, [9] same as previous, [10] From NJ.com/The Star-Ledger - WP:CLUB "Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area.", "NJ.com"=local coverage, [11] [12] [13], the award's website (again, doesn't matter if it's a "national award") verifying the winner is not significant or independent coverage, [14] "inclusion in lists of similar organizations", [15] WP:SIGCOV mentions do not count - it's not specifically about the school, but a general problem for all NJ schools, [16] [17] From NJ.com/The Star-Ledger - more local coverage, [18] From classroomcloseup.org, "Classroom Close-up, NJ is a half-hour television program that features innovative projects in New Jersey public schools." - yet more.

Most, if not all of the sources could also fail for more than one reason. But I'm already almost certain that this school is not wiki-notable. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some points that need clarification, maybe perhaps from other editors too:

You mentioned [19] (page 12) does not pass the WP:ORGDEPTH which has: "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as ...". The details that are published about Heritage in the source is not trivial, just a simple list, or a simple paragraph in a list. That coverage is not a meeting times, shopping hours, event schedules, phone number, business directory, inclusion list of similar organizations, etc. I think your standard might go a bit beyond what is suggested on WP:ORGDEPTH.
You said all sources from NJ.com are local. NJ.com contains many publications which include regional and local media. One of those is The Star-Ledger which is a regional newspaper that cover two major metropolitan areas (New York and Philadelphia), both of which are in the top ten US metros.
For other sources that cover New Jersey as a whole, you said they are all local. Again, I need to understand the distinction of local vs. regional from your point of view. Per the link from WP:ORG (which points to Newspaper#Local or regional), local has this definition: "A local newspaper serves a region such as a city, or part of a large city." When I'm reading this, if the scope of a publication is larger than a small to medium size city or larger than a part of a large city, it is considered to be regional. With that definition, a publication that has a scope of a county (a group of usually a dozen of cities) would also be defined as regional. If the scope of a publication covers two large metropolitan areas as I already mentioned, it would be certainly regional by this definition. Z22 (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also forgot to mentioned one other point. You said that NPR segment is considered as WP:SIGCOV mentions which do not count and the NPR publication was not specific about the school. I think you might missed something. If you really listen to that segment, more than 50% of the entire segment went very specific about the school. I just skimmed through the content and got the information like the lost of about $6 million in state aid from the district or 5% of overall budget caused the elimination of Heritage sport program. NPR mentioned the scale of the program that covered many sports at Heritage including softball, soccer, tennis, and lacrosse and interviewed parents on why sports were important to them. The elimination caused 65% of Heritage parents to push for a pay to play system. NPR went on about the administration's proposal for parents to pay up to $400. They talked about the average household income of $135,000 that influenced the decision that it was acceptable to have a pay-to-play system. They also pointed out that not all parents could effort the fees. The administration was considering to exempt families who couldn't afford a fee and considered a fundraising mechanism to make up the money. NPR pointed out that this is not a common solutions for the problems in NJ and it reviewed another school that does not have pay to play as an option. I don't think in a second that this NPR publication was merely "mentioning" of the school. It was with details and data to back NPR's analysis up. I'm pretty sure that it is not just mentioning. It was a main subject of that particular publication. Z22 (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Z22, [20] is pretty much a 16 page list of winners, of which, the school doesn't even get a full page. Above I said that according to WP:ORGDEPTH, "inclusion in lists of similar organizations" does not establish notability, you even called it "a simple list, or a simple paragraph in a list.". And it seems to be congratulating "the school board"(guessing that's the Livingston Public Schools board of Education) rather than the school itself. Also, the "Magna Awards" appear to be given out by the ASBJ [21] or at least strongly connected with it(see page 2).
I would not consider The Star-Ledger a regional newspaper. The front page of NJ.com(keyword: "NJ") features articles mainly related to New Jersey. Sure it may cover events happening outside of NJ, like the Pope's visit or the Presidential election, but not without involving NJ: "Meet 5 N.J. residents who are volunteering for Pope Francis' visit to Philadelphia", "Christie dismisses Trump support, says Fiorina was 'rude'. I would consider it a "state newspaper" or New Jersey newspaper, its prime readership being in NJ and having topics mostly involving NJ. Also the "N.J. News In Your Inbox" thing which seems to be on every article page says "From local news to politics to entertainment and sports, the twice daily Right Now eNewsletter has all of the New Jersey news you need!", and if you Google "nj.com" the click-on title says "NJ.com: New Jersey Local News, Breaking News, Sports ...". The definition from Newspaper#Local or regional is not the best(also unsourced). WP:AUD says that coverage must be at least regional and local coverage doesn't count. But what is a "Local or regional" newspaper? I'd rather go for a map like this by the US Census Bureau.
For the NPR segment, sure, it talks about problems that affect the school, but it was only used as an example for "At more affluent schools, parents are stepping in and footing the bill.", so those problems are not specific to that school. I can imagine other sources using others schools as examples. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the half page coverage is not "a simple list, or a simple paragraph in a list". It has enough details of the history and the result of a program of this school. It's not a trivial coverage. Also they might be talking about the board (maybe a paragraph on that) but the rest of it was about the school program.

For the Star Ledger issue, I took the link directly from the WP:ORG guideline ("...by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability"). That definition is right there. We can all invent our own maps. One editor may prefer one type of map to define "regional", another could have interpreted differently. We should take the guideline into consideration. It has a link to the definition for a purpose. You opinion is that if it is a state newspaper, it is not a regional newspaper. I respect your opinion on that, but it just does not fit to what has been described by the direct link provided in the WP:AUD.

For NPR, the notability does not talk about the requirement that the publication has to be about the uniqueness of the subject at all. As long as it is an in-depth coverage of the subject no matter what it is (which could be an example of some similar schools), it is still considered to be good enough in term of the depth of the coverage. All the details of data that I mentioned is very specific to this particular school, not all affluent schools. In fact only sentences that talk about other schools are limited to one or two as the intro. The rest of the story was about these two schools. It is possible (just a guess) that other sources could have used another school as an example. The fact still remains that NPR chose to do this with this particular school for whatever reason and they went into great details about it.

I think we both have a different perspective on the interpretation. I will wait for some other editors to add some thoughts to this. Z22 (talk) 23:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Z22, I still have more... Even if you don't think that that's a list, can you deny the ASBJ's close connection to the Magna Awards? First five seconds of this video [22] ""The ASBJ brings you the 2015 Magna Awards" and Magna Awards FAQ page [23] should be enough to prove that it's given out by the ASBJ. And what I said before about "the school board", from the source: "ABOUT THE PROGRAM Living Public Schools created the FemGineers (Female Engineering Club) to...", "The school board adopted... It also adopted...", "THE BOARD'S INVOLVEMENT The school board has invested thousands of dollars in renovating the technology lab at Heritage Middle School(only mention).". Also it seems that the award wasn't even ment for the school, but for the school board/district. On page 2, "Livingston Public Schools, Livington, N.J." is listed as a category 2 winner, same as the title of the section where the school is mentioned.

Instead of relying on a definition from an unsourced sub-section from our imperfect article on newspapers, which isn't even clear to begin with(What is a "Local or regional" newspaper?"), I used a map from the US Census Bureau[24], which clearly defines what they call the regions of the US. According to them, it appears that no state is also a region, and also to other actual sources [25] [26]. Lets see what newspapers actually call themselves: 1)NJ.com(The Star-Ledger does not have its own website, and according to its article its "the largest circulated newspaper in the U.S. state of New Jersey", which implies that its a state newspaper which would generally not be considered regional coverage) pretty much considers themselves to be local news, start with the "N.J. News In Your Inbox" thing above, Google these 2)"the new york times local", says "Breaking news from the New York Region including New York City, Westchester, Long Island, New Jersey and Connecticut.", the "New York Region" is not the state, but is made up of the areas listed after it. In case you say that it is, why would it list a part of New York state, New York City? 3)"new york daily news", says "Find breaking US news, local New York news coverage, sports, entertainment news, celebrity gossip, autos, videos and photos at nydailynews.com.", if state news is regional and not local, why did they call it local? 4)Go to https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ looks like they consider Maryland, Virginia, as well as D.C. news to be local.

Found some stuff from the NPR source that doesn't count for what you said earlier: "The school(that we selected to interview) is in Livingston, New Jersey, a suburban community an hour and a half from New York City. The school district lost about $6 million in state aid, or roughly 5 percent of its overall budget(also, huge budget if just for one school). Recently it(the school district) announced it would eliminate middle-school sports, until a survey that went out to parents(of the school district) showed 65 percent of them would be willing to help pay for sports themselves.", "According to the census, the median household income in Livingston is about $135,000 a year.", and "The Livingston School District is far from the only district struggling with how to keep sports and other extracurricular activities going.", right after that it goes to the other school that was selected for "local school districts have been forced to eliminate sports for middle schoolers and freshmen, lay off coaches, and reduce the number of games played within a season.", so the school is just an example. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should discuss the question on the local vs. regional media at the guideline talk page then. At least a few editors seem to think that the state paper that covers enough population should be regional. If the territory of 8.9 million people does not count as regional for the purpose of media coverage, I don't know what will. Anyway, you can discuss more there.

Yes, Magna Awards was given out by American School Board Journal, and that violates which part of the guideline?

For your claim that NPR publication was not talking about the school, but about the town, just so you know the school is the only 7th-8th grade middle school in Livingston. So when they talked about the middle school in that publication, it means Heritage Middle School. And when they talked about the census data, should the NPR say something like ...in the area of all residents served by Heritage Middle School is about $135,000 a year." Is there such census established per each territory of each school in the US? The answer is no. I think this is really nitpicking. In any case, since it is the only 7th-8th grade school in Livingston, it is not wrong to use Livingston census data to demonstrate their point. Please don't deny it that more than half of that segment talked specifically about the situation of this particular school. Not any other schools. Z22 (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Was gonna close as Redirect but we all know where that'd end up!. Anyway redirect per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 23:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I understand why there is such a resistance to follow the WP:ORG guildeline, because there is an easy mold (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay) that we all can try to quickly fit it into without a full consideration. So you are saying this will automatically be redirected without having an analysis and thoughtful discussion just because this is a middle school? Z22 (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That shows just how little you appear know about policies, guidelines, and essays, and the differences between them, Z22. OUTCOMES may have an essay banner on it but it is in no way an opinion piece. It is a strict report in one place that documents the way some things are handled. That said, redirect is a policy alternative to deletion and is evidenced by several thousand redirected school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but still, we should have a thorough discussion with substances to back it up, right? Although I disagree with the other editor, but I really appreciate his/her time in discussion why he/she thinks that way. Z22 (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus that run-of-the-mill elementary schools (including middle schools) are presumed non-notable. I see nothing that marks this as anything but an ordinary school. Carrite (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BL-1010[edit]

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

One ref is a press release, this stub looks like the start of a promotional article. No indication of notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. The fact that there is a similar article is not a reason to keep, and that compound is in Phase II/III trials, which is more that can be said for this one. shoy (reactions) 19:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See similar pages BL-1020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qr972500 (talk • contribs) — Qr972500 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. User:Qr972500 is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.

Please see WP:WAX. Comparing to an existing article is meaningless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this meets WP:GNG. See""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". For coverage, see [27], [28], [29] etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.82 (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — 128.138.65.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The third example doesn't even mention this at all. The first doesn't in the short summary given. The other is a press release on Market Watch, of all places. That isn't what significant coverage means, SG means the primary purpose of the article is to cover that topic, and it is by a neutral party, not a press release. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Likely delete as my searches found several results... for other items and nothing for this much less for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems the same chemical matter has been called by different names which diluted the coverage. Suggest to strengthen the scientific relevance and elaborate the relevant background though. Mmsumoer (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC) — Mmsumoer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete for lack of secondary sources determining notability. This article and a few others on related topics are the work of SPA Qr972500. Suspect some WP:SPIP. New Media Theorist (talk) 21:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG, as per Dennis. Searches did not turn up enough to show its notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Other than some obvious puppetry, the only cogent argument to keep was DGG's assertion that a journal published by a major university press implies notability. That argument doesn't seem to have gained any traction from the other participants. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis[edit]

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

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

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

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

Hate to go to AFD so quickly, but I've been digging since it was created and there just isn't enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability here. It is fairly new and you find a mention or two, but I didn't see any real coverage, thus it fails WP:ORG. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SBCA is eight years old, is well-established, is growing quickly, and has recently expanded internationally. It meets annually in Washington DC, and most recently attracted more than 300 attendees, including some from as far away as Italy, Australia, and New Zealand. The current President is Kip Viscusi, a prominent academic who merits a page of his own. As does the President-Elect, Susan Dudley. The SBCA is the professional organization for practitioners of BCA, including academics and government economists, both in the U.S. and around the world. The last five Presidents of the United States, of both parties, have issued Executive Orders making Benefit-Cost Analysis the primary tool for making regulatory decisions; other countries have followed suit. The U.S. Congress is considering legislation to codify the BCA principle into federal law, and the Senate recently held hearings on that topic, with Dudley as a key witness. In fact, the full Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee is holding another hearing tomorrow to consider such a bill, with Dudley again appearing as a witness. SBCA is well known within the subset of economists who practice BCA. It may be a somewhat obscure field to those outside the profession; but, given its influence over public policy, it certainly is notable. I am a member of the Society, and created the page. User:EMF2GO —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit-cost analysis is where economic research concerning the allocation of scarce (public) resources among competing end uses meets the nuts and bolts of actual policy-making by government agencies. The SBCA has just published Volume 6, Issue 2 (Summer 2015) of its journal, the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, edited by Glenn Blomquist and William Hoyt at the University of Kentucky. For just the year 2015 so far, the SBCA's official journal has apparently had 8,580 home-page views, 19,860 Table-of-Contents views, 7,924 Abstract views, and 3,090 Full-text views (Source: 9-15-15 emailed Report from the Editors of the Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, with data from Amy Laurent, Cambridge University Press, September 4, 2015). The SBCA's official journal was published by <a href="http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/jbca">de Gruyter</a> until the end of 2014, but moved to Cambridge University Press at that time. As of today, Cambridge is apologizing for some loss of functionality at the <a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=BCA#">JBCA website</a>, but when this site is working, it should be possible to verify the caliber and scope of the research associated with the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Disclosure: I am a past member of the Board of Directors of the Association, I have served on the selection committee for their annual conferences, and I have organized sessions for these conferences. - Trudy Ann Cameron, Mikesell Professor of Environmental and Resource Economics, University of Oregon — 128.223.109.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Additional notable economists associated with the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis include Arnold C. Harberger (Past President) and Editorial Board members Richard Revesz, Richard Zeckhauser and John D. Graham. The Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis was launched in 2010, so it is fairly new but its reputation and citations are growing. An article from the Spring 2015 issue regarding EPA air pollution rules received press coverage, including this article: http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/25954/20150526/epa-air-pollution-rules-more-uncertain-effects-expected.htm. Disclosure: I am the Executive Director of the Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis. Emdowd (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Emdowd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Fails at WP:CORPDEPTH for lack of significant third party coverage. Notability is neither inherited, nor transferred, so regardless of how famous a member may be, the organization must still stand on its own merits. Only one source has been provided for the entire article, and a lot more need to be presented to make the article be high enough quality to keep. Scr★pIron^IV 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Add to the previous concerns the obvious off-Wiki canvassing by bringing members of the organization with a clear conflict of interest to weigh in on the matter, not to mention the COI of the article being created by a member. Scr★pIron^IV 21:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ScrapIronIV, in response to Dennis Brown's initial comment, I sought help from some members of the Society who might be in a better position than I am to document the notability of the Society to the satisfaction of Wikipedia editors. Nobody's trying to pile on here; they simply tried to provide what was asked for. And, indeed, I am member of the Society, which I disclosed. As a member, I pay dues, but I do not receive any compensation nor any other material benefit. I don't see this as a COI, any more than my donating to a charity (or contributing to Wikipedia) would disqualify me from writing about it. This is a professional academic society, not to my knowledge involved in any public controversy. I think my description of it was factual, verifiable, and neutral in tone. I understand we disagree about whether it is notable. What prompted me to create the page is that, during a web search, I landed on Wikipedia's "SBCA" disambiguation page. It listed four organizations -- none of them, in my view, nearly as notable as the Society. This struck me, and would strike anyone familiar with the Society, as a weakness in Wikipedia -- one that I sought to remedy.

As a further indication of the Society's international character, here are a couple of cites by a British think tank [30], and one in Sweden [31]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMF2GO (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that bringing in various people to support your position is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS and is seen as vote stacking, ie: their votes are likely to be discounted or ignored by the closing admin. As for the article, it isn't about google searches, it is about the somewhat clear policy here on inclusion. Either an organization passes the criteria or it doesn't. How charitable, wonderful, big, exceptional or old they aren't doesn't really matter. That might not make sense, but we are an encyclopedia, thus our goal is to simply document what other 3rd parties have said, assuming the third parties are reputable press type organizations who are unaffiliated with the group. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That it publishes a journal with Cambridge University Press is evidence of significance. (the journal was recently transferred from deGruyter) .I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent notability. Relies on primary sources. We have articles about the prominent members Arnold C. Harberger (Past President) and Editorial Board members Richard Revesz, Richard Zeckhauser and John D. Graham but that does not imply the association itself is important neither does any of the linked biographical articles suggest otherwise. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 19:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show it meets the notability criteria for an independent article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marjorie Silverman[edit]

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

Silverman's positions at Barnard College as Associate Dean of the College, Dean for Student Development, and Adjunct Professor of Psychology do not appear to satisfy the requirements of the most promising provision of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) : "6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." The publication record does not seem to satisfy the guideline either. She seems to be a fine and productive college administrator, but that is not enough. Edison (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable academic; fails WP:GNG; seems like promo-pushing to me. Quis separabit? 19:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" Delete I'm not seeing notability here, as a scholar or as an administrator.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as although Books and Scholar seemed to have found some results, there's not much to suggest better improvement but feel free to draft and userfy. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete - arguably, being dean of students at a leading college, and working to fix the Furman center therein, are allegations of notability, but sources don't let her pass WP:GNG in any case. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Infinity (band)[edit]

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

Uncited and fairly non notable band. It is a borderline A7, which I used in the past here but I decided to go with a PROD which was contested. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real indication of notability, and a cursory Google search can't turn up any third-party sources. May even be a case of attempted self-promotion, since creator's username is distinctly similar to one of the listed band members. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note the creator of this article has also created an article on one of the band's (apparently non-notable) albums--For Me, Waiting For You. If this discussion is closed as delete, then that page should also be deleted. Everymorning (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fog Lights(Album) another creation by the editor about the group. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Brian heim composer (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeleGate (networking)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable software - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. PROD declined, 2011 AFD closed as no consensus -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Previous afd turned no RS refs, just a list of links to others using the software. My more recent search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. It is possible Japanese-language coverage exists, but unless it is provided, there is no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I always consider pinging past editors, I'm pleased to see you commented or else I would've likely pinged. Was this article added to your watchlist, Dialectric? SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dialectric's arguments. ABF99 (talk) 02:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches easily found no better results and especially not anything comparable to the time it has existed here (started April 2009) so it seems obvious this software is not widely known or otherwise notable enough for an article. Pinging past users RobertMfromLI, Orangemike, Kvng, CorporateM, Nabla, Graeme Bartlett and Ysangkok. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added what I believe is a WP:RS to the article. I could only find one so not enough for me to advocate Keeping. Enough to show that the Delete positions claiming no RS are not compelling. ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing a RS source. Your 'do your homework' edit summary, however, is unhelpful and does not WP:AGF. As I typically do with these articles, I searched at least 6 google search paged deep for a range of relevant terms including 'DeleGate proxy', 'DeleGate proxy server' and 'DeleGate server'. None of these searches turned up your result, or indeed any RS coverage. The few fully relevant results are personal blog posts.Dialectric (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "homework" I was referring to in my comment was a call for those advocating deletion to come back and update their arguments for deletion: "No reliable sources" is no longer valid argument. ~Kvng (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Swarm ♠ 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dark data[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NEO sourced only to a self-promotional piece written by the chair of Madura Microfinance. Using "dark data" to mean "data about non-internet users" seems idiosyncratic, and most usage of the term online refers instead to data which has been gathered but uninspected, as defined at Dark data (business). (The previous AfD is unrelated, and seems to be about this other meaning.) McGeddon (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I am not sure what the best solution is for this particular problem, but the term "dark data" seems to mostly be about data that has been collected but never used— and not about people who do not use the Internet. This article looks like it is a notable topic, but not under the definition provided for it. I am not sure I agree that there really are two different meanings in public circulation, and therefore that we need two different articles (if we need one, which I think we probably do). KDS4444^Talk 16:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely delete as my searches found several links here but maybe nothing for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start from scratch. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note The deleted article is about "A word denoting raw data which does not support a clear and specific hypothesis", to quote the first sentence. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insure2drive Insurance Racing[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. OEKC itself is barely notable enough to have an article; the individual teams that have led its ranks over the years do not have their own articles, so this newcomer team that has not yet ranked in the top 30 of the field doesn't seem to merit an article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO SEE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OEKC. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better than these links. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. In theory, the team could be notable even if the league isn't, though that isn't the case here. --Non-Dropframe _talk 10:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; clearly non-notable. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiDan61 and Fails WP:ORG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon McKie[edit]

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

Declined Prod. non-notable person/non-notable author - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable author on taxation. Belongs on LinkedIn. Quis separabit? 20:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see and found no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject should be considered notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing useful. In addition, I call attention to the blatant link bombing and that the entire page appears to be largely the work of WP:SPAs. Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST for WP:SELFPROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Lo[edit]

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

Without reliable, secondary sources, there is no indication that this person meets the relevant notability criterion at WP:BASIC. PROD was contested without comment. VQuakr (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable child actor; fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 19:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I would've even suggested moving to one of his best known works but as there's not much information and my searches found nothing good, delete for now is the only option. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Citobun (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Sarah 14:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OEKC[edit]

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

Unremarkable motorsports organization. CSD tag removed by IP user but I still believe it fits well within WP:A7. --Non-Dropframe _talk 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO SEE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Insure2drive Insurance Racing. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any reliable sources about this organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much like the other article, I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edvinas Navickas[edit]

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

Does not meet the guideline. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-notable Youtuber.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) as although News and browser found some but unhelpful links, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChameleonJohn.com[edit]

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

Article about a one year old website. There are sources, but they seem to be almost entirely advertorials and PR content written by employees of company. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. - Mr X 12:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I see no better improvement here and the best my searches found were this and this. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Renata (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to state a claim of notability, nothing about achievements, impact or historical significance (possible in one year?). Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Fails WP:GNG in lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Physics and Applications[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a year old journal. No evidence of meeting WP:JOURNALCRIT or WP:GNG. Created by an editor who has started numerous journal stubs, all linking back to the same website. Notably, the website has a very poor Web of Trust rating due to spam. - Mr X 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No information provided beyond the name of the journal. Following the web site, this journal title is not in evidence. LaMona (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to find more on the publisher's site (and updated the link), but this still only shows that it exists and does not provide evidence of passing WP:NJournals. Re the nominator's remarks about the reputation of the publisher: it is published in cooperation with a reputable publisher, Springer; on the other hand, its other publisher was once included on Beall's list of predatory open access journals but pressured him through legal channels into removing it — see this link. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than a few links here. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal on Music[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a year old journal. No evidence of meeting WP:JOURNALCRIT or WP:GNG. Created by an editor who has started numerous journal stubs, all linking back to the same website. Notably, the website has a very poor Web of Trust rating due to spam. - Mr X 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Following the web site link, the title of the journal is "Journal of Music", not on. And the journal, an OA journal, is barely one year old and cannot be considered established in any sense of the word. LaMona (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NJournals. See my longer response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Physics and Applications. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal on Agricultural Engineering[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a year old journal. No evidence of meeting WP:JOURNALCRIT or WP:GNG. Created by an editor who has started numerous journal stubs, all linking back to the same website. Notably, the website has a very poor Web of Trust rating due to spam. - Mr X 12:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See other responses of mine to this line of journals. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NJournals. See my longer response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Physics and Applications. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is a newly founded journal and appears to not have had even the least coverage yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal on Aviation Technology[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a year old journal. No evidence of meeting WP:JOURNALCRIT or WP:GNG. Created by an editor who has started numerous journal stubs, all linking back to the same website. - Mr X 12:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See other responses of mine to this line of journals. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NJournals. See my longer response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Physics and Applications. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability (or significant content in the article) - with just an infobox and nothing else. No evidence that the article meets GNG or other notability guidelines.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Geological Sciences[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a year old journal. No evidence of meeting WP:JOURNALCRIT or WP:GNG. - Mr X 12:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See other responses of mine to this line of journals. LaMona (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NJournals. See my longer response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Physics and Applications. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:TOOSOON, no coverage, no citation or even time for it to happen. --Bejnar (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. An article on the crime, or a section of the university's article should be judged independently, but as a biography, no, this is 1E, and BLP does apply to the recently deceased. Courcelles (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Lamb[edit]

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

Believe this is a case of 1E Gbawden (talk) 11:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A technical question: does WP:BLP1E still apply when the subject has recently died? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BDP might apply in this particular case, but not sure. Even if it doesn't, WP:CRIME might be more relevant since it says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." It is unlikely that Lamb would otherwise be notable for a stand-alone article, so I think it needs to be shown that Lamb satisfies the criteria in "For perpetrators" in WP:CRIME. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Nomination rationale has been changed to WP:1E since I made my comment above. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi -related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. EricSerge (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Delta State University which carries mention of the only event this person is notable for. If a dedicated article for the crime is created then redirect there. GraniteSand (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's my thought so far. This was a tragic event, but the coverage for this is actually surprisingly light. I'm not entirely sure that this would merit a separate article at this point in time, to be honest. (By this I mean an article on the shooting, not Lamb specifically.) I also think that the shooting itself should be revisited in a few years to see if it's notable enough to really be in the article either, since we have a tendency to include things with the idea that it'll gain more coverage over time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that's for the future and including it in the college's article will possibly help discourage people from re-adding it for the time being, if this is deleted. I'm going to try to clean up Lamb's article and see if there's anything that can be done with it, just to make sure, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a writeup of the article centering around the event itself. It contains more information but I'm still sort of leaning towards 1E on this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just went and added it to the article. If anyone wants to revert, feel free. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This definitely will not be notable in the long run. Just a run-of-the-mill incident of domestic violence. Versus001 (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... there was a flurry of news articles but now it's slowed down to a trickle other than the posts about the upcoming funerals and some speculation about the guy's motives. I'm definitely leaning towards not really notable in the long run unless there's some epiphany on his motives or some law gets passed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Book of World Records[edit]

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

does not meet wiki:notability, also fails miserably on wp:ref Shrikanthv (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems to be a trend of creating "world records" books or sites and letting people provide their own "records" to be listed. This is one of them. Basically, you fill out a form and send it in [32], and then you get approval. As these "records" may be cited in articles, the reliability of these sources should be clarified at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. LaMona (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more news reference. Hope, It helped the article to get improved. I believe this article should not be deleted as several news references i have cited to the article. Thank you.--Jeeteshvaishya (talk) 11:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is part of a COIN I opened up earlier today, the refs are all local interest puff pieces about the recipients of these "records" not this book. And then there's random links provided to searches. I've cleaned up most of this from the article. —SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage of the work, fails WP:NWEB. The only review I found was this one in Hindi. --Bejnar (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Gu[edit]

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

non-notable person - Standard searches do not reveal enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails individual notability as well as GNG. Quis separabit? 17:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ishiyama-ryū[edit]

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

Non-notable martial art - basically a school with a couple of locations (based on website) and a few pretentions. References are essentially primary or about the founder and those are not enough to confer notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant independent coverage of this martial art. Main links are about the founder, but there's not enough there to show notability either. Halls of fame and school websites are not enough.Jakejr (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better than one link at Books and the usual various links at browser, the article is better than most other ones, but it could be better and there's simply no better sourcing. Feel free to draft and userfy, SwisterTwister talk 05:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Sure Insurance[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, fails WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH JMHamo (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as the best results I found were this (one of the links currently listed and the other PR saying they're one of the fastest growing companies in the country). WP:TNT and start when better. SwisterTwister talk 07:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as the company is clearly large enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. There are tons of media sources out there citing One Sure Insurance if you look far enough. Example 1 Example 2 Example 3. I have seen far less notable Wiki entries. Although I think the One Sure page could be added with notable community feats they have achieved - such as supporting major causes such as the Spitfire. Icematikx (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As Icematikx is the creator of the article with a clear COI, I would expect you !vote to keep. JMHamo (talk) 10:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Clearly, this vote seems personal as you disagreed with an edit I made on Wolverhampton Wanderers, and went after an article I made from there. One Sure Insurance is a notable company whichever way you look at it - with 90+ employees, and growing to 200, with major award nominations. I can think of far less notable companies who have Wikispace. Icematikx (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources provided that cover the company itself in depth - agree that it fails WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Longevity claims. Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Amash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure there's sufficient notability from being a pretender to a claim of longevity. Longevity claims which is where it could go is a complete amalgamation of all sorts of claims like this. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Longevity claims. Being validated by Guinness or another agency as the oldest woman ever would make her notable but that's not the case here. There is some independent news coverage but it repeats her own claim that she's the oldest woman ever. There's also not much to this article besides her claim of extreme age. Since there already exists a list of unverified claimants in Longevity claims, it makes sense to merge this article into that one. Ca2james (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 11:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only real 'coverage' going on is repeated claims on her extreme longevity. I doubt some reliable secondary sources will get even coverage on this. --201.53.53.216 (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion? or support keeping the article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. Changed to avoid confusing people. --201.53.53.216 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Longevity claims.Clearly not the claimed age per supporting evidence. Worth mentioning in Longevity claims with other similar claims that are unsustained. - Galloglass 19:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Longevity claims. Preferable to deletion because she did get news coverage, so it's useful to have claim be documented as implausible.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loyal Trooper[edit]

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

This is an unfortunate case of a promising music career that quickly stalled and frankly never got off the ground. He has released one EP and a single (Doctors) neither of which charted. There are few third-party sources around (reviews, an interview and a few local gig listings) from the period 2007 and 2008. These are problematic, partly because they are listings or they just outline the start of his career and have an air of the promotional. I tried to find more recent sources, but Mr. Walker has disappeared, it seems. As it stands, one EP and a single while performing some support slots around the London area is not enough to qualify through WP:MUSIC. Part of me thinks he perhaps prefers to be forgotten? Karst (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable musician, kinda like a one-hit wonder, without a real hit. Quis separabit? 19:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing better than these links. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Swarm ♠ 22:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Ryne Goldberg[edit]

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

CRIME article but the person is not famous and hasn't been convicted.

I want to delete this because I found these instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons and he has not been convicted.

Persons accused of crime[edit] See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators Shortcut: WP:BLPCRIME A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[6] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[7] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information. Punstress (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been numerous Wikipedia articles about persons accused of high-profile crimes that have not been deleted. If we take your interpretation at face value, Wikipedia would not be able to cover any crime accusations or trials .Also, due to the worldwide media coverage, Goldberg is certainly no longer an "relatively unknown person"Redfip (talk) 04:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really because the arrest (not indictment apparently) can be an article but not the fellow's name. Punstress (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the language and reasoning in the above are very unclear. Please clarify Redfip (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it's not true that Wikipedia would not be ablet o cover any crime accusations or trials because they can make the article about the arrest or the crime but not put it under the fellow's name. I am trying to follow the instructions but there's too many to learn. You seem to know a lot of the ins and outs of Wikipedia and you've only been a member for a week. Did you take some kind of class? I've been a member almost 10 years and I can barely figure out how to add to this page. I'd appreciate any advice, but not too much reading. Thanks. Punstress (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I said "not indictment apparently" because the article said he had been indicted but none of the articles I saw said "indicted," just arrested. I read elsewhere that the indictment will come later. Punstress (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it's decided to keep it, then I will be adding his birthday and political party affiliation back (which matters because, since he played both sides of multiple debates, people are trying to figure out where his actual leanings lie) and there should be no objection. Punstress (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:NOTNEWS. There may be enough in the future for an article about the event, but we should avoid having a biography. — Strongjam (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep considering that there are hundreds of reputable news stories covering this person in multiple countries the article easily meets WP:GNG, and considering that there are strong links to the Garland shooting in which two people died, and many more could have been killed if the attackers succeeded, posted pictures of bombs he allegedly manufactured, and is accused by the FBI of planning a heinous bombing in Kansas City, as well as the alleged planned shooting attacks on synagogues in Australia, there is plenty of justification for keeping this article. There are many cases of alleged or convicted terrorists who have arguably "accomplished" less, or the same such as John Walker Lindh, Derrick Shareef, Zachary Adam Chesser, Syed Fahad Hashmi and Tarik Shah none of whom were closely linked to any deaths as the subject of this article is, and all of whom have biographical articles. Also apart from Lindh, none of the others received the level of attention that Goldberg has, in the press. Furthermore, Goldberg's actions as the high profile "Australi Witness", (a link established twice, once by Australian journalists, and separately by the FBI), indicate that he was clearly seeking publicity, to the extent of giving an interview to a newspaper-the idea that there is a special need for privacy of an "unknown" or "private" person" is rather weak when that same person sought out the attention of journalists . Also, coverage of Australi Witness has been ongoing for months, since the Garland shootings, meaning that claims that this story only began a few days ago are inaccurate, and it is likely that coverage will continue for a while yet. This is before we get to other online personas such as "Tanya Cohen" who have also been in the spotlight for months. This long-term interest and coverage of Goldberg's activities (likely to continue) makes WP:NOTNEWS moot.

Goldberg was identified, both by the FBI and independently by Australian journalists. He also admitted to the FBI that he tried to incite the attack in KC, so the idea that this could be a case of mistaken identity is extremely remote. Indeed I would argue that even if it was a case of mistaken identity and all charges were dropped, that the scale of the scandal of his hypothetical false accusation, and the level of misconduct required would make him even MORE noteworthy. There have been plenty of accused terrorists who have been charged, and had articles about them created on Wikipedia. Indeed if we were to follow this logic to its conclusion, then all the detainees at Guantanamo Bay ought to have their articles deleted from Wikipedia since none have been charged (or charges have been dropped), most are living and none have been convicted of a crime? I am struggling to see why an exception needs to be made for Goldberg.

Those who seek to delete the article are using a rather scattershot approach. The original proposer seems to have a rather vague idea that people who are not convicted are not notable or have some inherent right to absolute privacy (or something like that). Another author claims that notability hinges on the length of the coverage: I have pointed out that Goldberg and his sock puppets have been covered for months. Another has introduced a mental health argument which is again, does not diminish notability. The judicial process to determine his mental state is irrelevant to Goldberg's notability. The article on James Eagan Holmes was created 3 days after the 2012 Aurora shooting [[33]] with no consideration to the fact that he wasn't convicted at that point, and despite widespread speculation about about Holmes' mental state, even at that early stage. Even if Goldberg were found unfit to stand trial, that would in no way change his notability and the fact that he was closely linked to multiple violent acts or planned acts. Regardless, mental illness cannot be used to block the creation of an article: see John Hinckley, Jr. WP:GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list'. Should this afd succeed, the arguments being deployed to delete this article could then also be used to delete the article on Abu Zubaydah who is a living person, widely reported to be mentally ill, and who is being held without charge (and has been deemed "too innocent to charge"), yet it would be presumably be universally agreed that it is absurd to do so because of WP:GNG. Osama bin Laden would also not have had an article until after he was killed, if such extreme interpretations of WP:BLP were valid, since again, he was not convicted of any crime.

Redfip (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But all those people were convicted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress (talk • contribs)

Looking at the edit histories of all those articles, most were created when the people were charged, not after they were convicted. What makes Goldberg different? Redfip (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that rule wasn't around or was different when the others were created? IDK. I'm sure there are many examples of articles that break rules. Punstress (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient coverage of the enormous network of strawmen and sockpuppets created by this individual to establish WP:GNG even before we get to WP:CRIME considerations, doesn't feel like it's going to be a WP:NOTNEWS that is going away any time soon. Artw (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WPNOTNEWS does not apply here. It established by WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. WP:NOTNEWS is policy, and it trumps WP:GNG, which is a guideline. Keegan (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question- So far my guess is concerned, the subject is a criminal. I want to ask keep voters, how does he meet WP:CRIME?. Reputable agencies are supposed to cover criminal activities, it doesn't make every criminal an encyclopedic subject. Hitro talk 19:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The person was an alleged criminal with a very high profile alias that actively sought publicity and was widely covered in the media long before his arrest. His alias wrote a Tweet that was retweeted by a shooter who intended to commit mass murder in Texas, and there was a strong case made that the alias could have, in fact incited the attempted mass murder (indeed it claimed responsibility). He gave interviews (under an alias) to journalists and was presented as an archetypal online Islamic extremist in the media in multiple publications in multiple countries. Also he claimed to be planning an attack in Melbourne, and was caught by the FBI planning a violent bombing in Kansas City. The combination of these factors would make him more notable than the average (alleged) criminal, and therefore worthy of being an encyclopedic subject. Redfip (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your views, but it all look like an original research. No sources, no citations. How am I gonna believe your words? Do you really think the subject meets WP:CRIME. WP:CRIME is a notability test and notability is a test to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. My sole question is unanswered, How does the subject pass on WP:CRIME ? Hitro talk 20:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research, all the citations are in the article. Furthermore, he clears WP:GNG so WP:CRIME is irrelevant. Redfip (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a confusion. WP:CRIME is irrelevant to this discussion or the subject doesn't pass on this criteria? Please explain. Hitro talk 20:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ → Keep (see below) - Here's a hypothetical: let's say the FBI announces tomorrow "ah we made a mistake. we meant to arrest this kid's neighbor" and all coverage of Goldberg rightly ceases. If the article were then nominated for deletion, would you !vote to keep or delete it? If you say we should delete it in that case, you should say we should delete it in this case. This is the sort of reason WP:NOTNEWS exists and why WP:GNG requires coverage over a period of time. We don't know whether coverage of this person will continue. All we have are news reports from over a span of a few days based on an arrest and various alleged connections. If it weren't a BLP, there might be room to say "well it's obvious the subject is going to continue receiving coverage", but because of WP:BLP and particularly WP:BLPCRIME, which tells us we should exercise extreme care when talking about people notable only in connection to a crime, we should be deleting now and recreating later if coverage continues and/or if he is found guilty. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that should delete this because of a hypothetical reasoning for deletion based on what could happen that would make this article non-notable. It doesnt add up.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. If there's something that would cause this subject to be considered non-notable later, that means it's not notable today because notability is not temporary. It's an example of why WP:NOTNEWS exists and why WP:GNG requires persistent coverage over a period of time.
Sometimes we have articles about developing subjects based on an extraordinary amount of coverage over a short period of time, but that would make for an IAR sort of exception to these guidelines based on the presumption that coverage will continue. This is not one of those scenarios, not the least because of our WP:BLP policies. In other words, there are times when we ignore the "over a period of time" part of the GNG if it's very obvious coverage will continue, but here (a) the coverage is not of the sort that it makes sense to make an exception for, and (b) we should never make that sort of exception with a BLP of a private individual whose notability is entirely based on an arrest and allegations in news reports about the arrest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that he has only received attention after his arrest is strange in the light of the extensive coverage Australi Witness received after the Garland Shootings. I would argue that the coverage has indeed been ongoing for months. Further,from the fact that Goldberg has been linked independently by two separate reliable sources (the FBI and the Australian journalists) to Australi witness, it is clear that Goldberg was himself courting the limelight by giving an "interview" to the Sydney Morning Herald as Australi Witness. To try to shield him as a "private individual" now does not make sense when he himself was actively seeking publicity. Incidentally, Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual makes the obvious point that Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.,. Goldberg, through his Australi Witness persona was clearly seeking media attention by giving interviews to journalists. The concern for his privacy seems misplaced, Redfip (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are reasonable points. I don't have time right now, but I'll go through the sources more carefully soon and reassess. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Having gone back through the current sources to see what past sources could be reasonably connected to the subject (beyond those that rely on speculation), I've switched my !vote to keep. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That there is a statement from the FBI in those news articles or that he has otherwise been "identified" doesn't actually add anything, though (regardless of whether or not it's presently in the article). The important things are (a) the subject is a living person who is not a public figure, (b) his notability is based on having allegedly committed crimes (WP:CRIME), (c) he has not been found guilty of those crimes (WP:BLPCRIME), (d) coverage of him is limited to just a few days (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG). Regarding "there have been plenty of accused terrorists who have been charged, and had articles about them created on Wikipedia", see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and nominate them for deletion if you so choose; they're not relevant here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your repeated claim that he has only been in the news for a few days is inaccurate, His Australi Witness persona was heavily covered in the aftermath of the Garland shootings: [34] [35]. The fact that his pseudonym has only been linked to his real identity recently does not change the fact that his activities were the subject of extensive and ongoing reporting over a much longer period than a few days. Redfip (talk) 21:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WSJ response to another of his sockpuppets - something they later covered here post exposure. I'd also argue that this is evidence of notability outside of anything he is likely to face criminal charges over. Artw (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) has made some valid points here. I was never sure that the subject meets WP:CRIME and i believe this article should be deleted per WP:BLPCRIME. Most of the keep reasonings are truly invalid, like the one where we need to read WP:OSE. Hitro talk 20:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCRIME is a content criteria, and concerns related to it should be addressed on the page itself. Not entirely sure why it keeps being brought out here as if it is a deletion criteria. Artw (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we were only talking about notability, something like BLPCRIME would be irrelevant, but we're not just talking about notability we're talking about our WP:BLP policy, which is certainly relevant to AfD. I.e. if the whole of an article's content is problematic in the context of Wikipedia's content policies, that's cause for deletion (the various WP:NOTs, for example(s) are commonly raised at AfD). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would ask why no attempt has been made to address those concerns in the article and its talk page. Artw (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Artw (talk · contribs)... WP:BLPCRIME is part of WP:ALIVE and WP:ALIVE is a policy. This policy states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. plus it says Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. So why do you think WP:BLPCRIME shouldn't be focussed here. At the moment this article is at better place of discussion, talk page discussions rarely gets to the conclusion unless it's an edit war. Hitro talk 20:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", ie in the page. Instead not much is happening in the page and we have BLPCRIME being waved around as a sort of flag where, frankly, WP:CRIME contains most of the language from that policy that would be applicable to a deletion discussion. It seems more like an attempt to put a scare into people by yelling "BLP!" than a proper use of policy. Artw (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~probable delete~~ I'm uncomfortable with this one for two reasons, he hasn't been charged and the judge has sent him to be examined by mental health professionals to see if he is mentally fit to stand trial Here: [36]. It does seem edgy under BPL to have an article if he is either mentally infirm or if no charges are brought.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He is the age when first schizophrenic breaks typically occur. If he gets a clean bill of mental health, the picture changes. He has been committed for a 30-day evaluation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my vote, which was made on general BLP principals of not having articles on minor figures who behave in bizarre fashion, may be mentally disturbed, and are not notable for any substantive achievement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redfip, See WP:BLUDGEON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2015

I hesitate on BLP grounds to have articles on severely mentally ill individuals who plan or plot cries, but do not actually commit them. Recent, reliable coverage makes him sound like a very disturbed young man, on medication, living at home with his parents. Here: [37] E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, at the risk of being accused of bludgeoning, I invite you look at the articles that I have linked to In this discussion about numerous young men in similar circumstances who have articles in Wikipedia who planned, but did not commit terrorist acts but who meet the notability criteria the same way Goldberg does (or less so). Also your link mentions depression, this does not qualify as being very disturbed, and still fails to diminish eligibility under WP:GNG Redfip (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked, of course. Responsible editors do that before commenting on a complex AFD like this. The parallels you bring are poor parallels, so unlike this case, and your arguments so detached from policy, that I was led to look at your editing record. It takes a while for new editors to learn their way around Wikipedia, after all. New editors are welcome, but it can take a while to figure out what constitutes good evidence, and what does not. Many of your arguments show an unusual familiarity with Wikipedia jargon, for someone who has just begun editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redflip, I now see that you are new to Wikipedia, and that this is the almost the only article that you have edited. I suggest that you have a little patience and give other editors a chance to weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLP. It's policy. WP:GNG, what is being countered, is a guideline. Don't bother arguing with me like every other delete !vote on this page. Keegan (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Redfip: It looks like you've responded to E.M.Gregory's point about WP:BLUDGEON by condensing many of your comments. Unfortunately, this robs of context all of our responses to those comments. Radically changing your own comments once people have responded is typically frowned upon (WP:REDACT). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. NOTNEWS is a crude instrument for article (topic) deletion, it's better for content disputes within an article, not for the article topic. The reason is everything is news initially. It's rare to write an article about a new thing that isn't news or sourced from news. That's why we have BLP1E and GNG to ensure there is enough coverage. -- GreenC 20:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is not just about the most-recent incident about the terrorism charges, but includes many other significant activities perpetrated by this individual making him a very notable individual far beyond the terrorism case. werldwayd (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Australi Witness was notable for reasons entirely independent of the prosecution, and the news stories say that he is already admitted to be Australi Witness. They could be wrong ... but so could any statement in any article about history, however old. "NOTNEWS" is being deliberately abused for deletion, as is always the case, and never says what people seem to imply it does. To counterbalance the illegitimate reasons for deletion, I'll add my illegitimate reason for keeping - it is simply a case of great interest to the nature of censorship in the U.S., and of what constitutes a "conspiracy". Is providing information made illegal solely because of the online representation of someone who is in fact not a terrorist that he is a terrorist, regardless whether the intent of the person providing the information is to help him or get him arrested? Wnt (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we go by the reliable sources and he meets GNG. —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable by WP:GNG and well sourced. The Australi Witness persona itself is notable. The news coverage of Goldberg's arrest is only part of the coverage of his many personas, interesting for the history of online hoaxes.Lizzard (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Subject has placed himself in the public eye. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets GNG, clearly isn't a low profile individual -- Y not? 15:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His reported actions to spark the Curtis Culwell Center attack are surely notable enough. Versus001 (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A a person, not himself known to be an Islamic extremest, allegedly inciting commission of terrorist attacks and possibly inspiring an actual attack is significant in so many ways. Certainly enough to overcome the cautionary as opposed to restrictive nature of CRIME and NOTNEWS. He easily passes GNG for the multiple notable events of harassment and incitement he allegedly committed. Jbh ^Talk 16:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if he should turn out to be crazy enough to be committed to a mental institution for the rest of his life, he has already attracted enough substantive coverage to pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MODAL Research[edit]

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

I am creating this discussion for the original nominator and the article's creator Sn0fl4k3 who didn't complete the process correctly. His/her reason was that the article was a confused merge of two different organizations and was out of date. See: [38]. The article is about a research group based at Simon Fraser University in Canada. Note that while the original nominator's rationale is primarily based on WP:BLOWITUP, there are other more valid reasons for deletion. See my comments below. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The rationale for deletion seems to be that MODAL Research is a research group started in 2010. RYME Youth research group is a separate research group that happens to have a same university and director affiliation, but no more links, and commenced in 2008. Please note that RYME youth page was merged with and renamed to MODAL Research, in 2010. This should not have happened. Rather, two separate pages should have been maintained.

Due to this error: a majority of the info and references in the now babes MODAL RESEARCH page were really only related to that of RYME youth research - Research for Youth, Music, and education. There are only two paragraphs that are currently in the MODAL page that can be attributed to Modal research group. All the other info Ivan be traced back to the or gal RYME page before the merge.

As MODAL is not specifically a music organization, rather an artistic learning research group at Sinon Fraser University, the separation of the two sets of content is essential to best serving the Wikipedia community and the validity of the info for modal.

Please note that while Mosal has many potential references and links, it would require a substantive amount of work. It is best to revert RYME youth back to its original 2010 name (or delete RYME's page, as RYME no longer exists), and to remove the remaining MODAL paragraphs until it can be created as a full and proper page with less biased and copied content from the website. AlohaBunny (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete? It looks like the two remaining paragraphs about MODAL are taken almost verbatim from here, though at least one sentence is phrased as a quotation in the WP entry. Since there is really no original content left in the article, I think it qualifies for a speedy (G12, if not also G11), but I didn't want to jump the gun and make this nomination even more confusing. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm going to stub the article to remove the copyvio. Unless the copyvio is foundational, speedy delete doesn't usually apply. There are earlier versions of the article which aren't copyvio to which it could be reverted, although they are grossly promotional and now inaccurate. It's probably better to let this AfD run. It's quite possible that it will be closed early per WP:SNOW. Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The far more pressing reason is that both MODAL Research and its predecessor organization RYME comprehensively fail the General Notability Guidelines and the Notability Guidlines for Organizations as well as the Guidelines concerning sub-articles related to universities. I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources which provide significant coverage of this small research group (consisting of only 4 main "investigators" + 9 graduate assistants) or evidence that attests to its impact. Voceditenore (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ROTM research group. --Slashme (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolfs Ice Hockey Club[edit]

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

Non notable amateur club who play in a non competitive league Gbawden (talk) 07:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Thoroughly unremarkable. Unable to find third-party coverage.--Non-Dropframe _talk 10:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non-notable outfit that runs a couple of beer league teams? Fails WP:ORG, WP:NOTWEBHOST. Ravenswing 13:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see how this warrants an entry in the encyclopedia. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 15:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no evidence of better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Adalsteinsson[edit]

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

I don't believe that this person meets GNG. The telegraph article is about the son and the other article just mentions that the Duke of Ediburgh met him. Gbawden (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No obvious notability. The MBE is far too minor to qualify a recipient for inherent notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject seems to lack significant coverage so doesn't seem to pass the GNG. Nothing stopping some of this information being included elsewhere though if a suitable parent article exists (for instance was the ship that was sunk notable?) Anotherclown (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see no improvement here. SwisterTwister talk 05:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- MBE is quite a minor award; too minor for notability. I also doubt that being the proprietor of a trawler company is sufficient for notability. There may be cases where adding two NN characteristics together is enough to push a person into notability, but I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley College of Engineering and Technology for Women[edit]

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

Vinay68 (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)It's just an educational college website which I feel necessary for people to check the details of the college. This is where I took reference from List of engineering colleges affiliated to Osmania University — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinay68 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC) WP:TOOSOON Action Hero Shoot! 06:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an institute of higher education, it should be kept as a matter of course unless someone can show that it is not accredited. LaMona (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found some reliable sources: 1, The Hindu and The Hindu (2)

Sources may also be found in the Telugu language. AusLondonder (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Accredited degree-granting institution. We need more, not less, of this content. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this is an acceptable institute thus notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N-Rimes[edit]

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

All references are from Youtube, Twitter, social networking sites. Action Hero Shoot! 06:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - creator Rimes Management (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have a conflict of interest here. clpo13_(talk) 06:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ARTIST, I don't see any reliable, independent, in-depth coverage for GNG either. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Unreliable references. Action Hero Shoot! 05:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons stated by Piotrus and Action Hero. I note that there are two reliable sources in the article, but neither one speaks to the notability of the subject. Instead, they both relate to the death of the subject's aunt (for which I extend my condolences to the subject). NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although I found results here, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Teixeira (linguist)[edit]

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

My searches simply found nothing good (aside from two links almost to the bottom) and there's no good target for moving elsewhere for this article from February 2006 after it was split from the Kristang language article. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:PROF #1. I have wondered about people like Bible translators, because there are thousands of fairly anonymous missionaries around the world working on translations for languages which might have only a few hundred speakers. But many of these people are the foremost expert in the world regarding the linguistics of a particular language. Teixeira seems to be an example of someone in that category (e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=temxAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA257) St Anselm (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:PROF #1, as St. Anselm points out, he is a widely cited historian whose work is discussed and cited by other historians of Portuguese India. Here: [39] is a search of his name + Kristang on books google. More to the point, here [40] is the same search using "Cristão" , turning up a lot of discussion of him and his work. And here [41] a search of books using his name + Macau turns up discussions of his in several languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An author search in WorldCat supports notability [42]. In my opinion, such a search should be a prerequisite towards a deletion of anyone likely to have written books. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'd relist due to the lack of responses, but the reasoning given by the keeps are particularly strong. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panagiotis Anagnostopoulos (general)[edit]

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

Is this person notable? I dream of horses (T) @ 04:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably notable for other reasons, but certainly notable as a general officer (and a senior one too) under WP:SOLDIER. Incidentally, as a nominator you're supposed to say why you think someone isn't notable, not question whether they are. If you're not sure whether they're notable or not then don't nominate for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kenichi Mochizuki[edit]

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

I checked ANN and GamePlaza Haruka. While the actor has a bunch of roles, they are all supporting or guest roles, so it is not clear what role he is most famous for to meet WP:ENT. JA wikipedia does not have any useful information to beef up the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned by the nominator, it is not at all clear whether the person has played anything other than minor roles, and given the absence of in-depth third-party coverage, the article also fails to satisfy the basic notability guidelines for Wikipedia articles. --DAJF (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor roles, not enough to pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep minor is subjective and I think those roles look pretty notable. Vivexdino (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, not enough substantial coverage to pass notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvir Ahmed Khan[edit]

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

Granted, there's always a possibility of non-accessible sources but my searches simply found nothing better with searches at Books, News, browser, highbeam, thefreelibrary (I only found this which appears to be related to this one), The Hindu, Times of India, NDTV, DNA, Hindustan Times, Zee News and Indian Express. Without a single good source and move target as an alternative to deletion, there's not much to suggest keeping (you would've at least expected something close to good coverage). Pinging probably the only interested editor (BLPPRODer) Joe Decker. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK4 (I'm not entirely sure Sk4 covers it but not bothered either way!) - Nom's blocked and there's no !delete votes, If anyone wants to renominate today, tomorrow or whatever I have no objections. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pierre Delphis[edit]

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

Taking part in only one event and finishing 108th is not enough for an article. Action Hero Shoot! 04:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guidelines say that post WWII cyclists competing at world level are notable. The Tour de France (which he rode in) is world level. This is also not all he did. It's only an incomplete stub.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator is blocked as sock puppet. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Cornies[edit]

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

Another article with a {{notability}} tag. Again, let's establish whether or not this person is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as I'm not seeing an obviously good move target and although he has a few awards as shown at IMDb, I'm not sure if they'll hold the article and my searches found results at News and Books as well but nothing for better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as thoroughly non-notable actor. Possibly too soon, possibly not. Quis separabit? 20:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

18h39[edit]

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

Video game which failed Google test. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software (game) article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Amazon references are not good references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philroc (talk • contribs)
Delete - Does not prove notability. Ana r chyte 10:54, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G12 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Ocean Research Unit[edit]

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

This organization has gotten a bit of attention, but it seems like we don't have the kind of sustained reliable source coverage that we need. It seems like CORU would be best discussed in a section on the main University of British Columbia page itself. I thought about proposing a merge, but then I'm not even sure if CORU is even notable enough to be mentioned in detail even over there. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G12 - almost all of the prose in the article is copied directly from the official site. Tagged. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adrift/From Home[edit]

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

This song doesn't appear notable at all, with searches giving no real information other than it exists. It doesn't appear to have charted anyplace. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing out there which establishes any kind of notability whatsoever. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's barely much here and I would've suggested moving elsewhere if there wasn't a target. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Avery W. Lamphier[edit]

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

Contested CSD. I'm not sure if this person is notable. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:04, 15 September 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) @ 03:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that notability isn't and can't be demonstrated. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a fine upstanding person and veteran but not encyclopaedically notable. Promo by friends and family, almost certainly. Quis separabit? 20:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that, it was on Did you know? so it must be notable, has no basis in policy. DYK's acceptance criteria are mostly mechanical and do not confer any special aura of notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mellinger[edit]

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

okay, there are lots of decorated army guys, nothing to say why he is notable Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He was believed to be the last draftee of the Vietnam War-era to still be in the military (since proven to be one of three remaining), after which his retirement would have caused the entire service to be an all-volunteer service for the first time in recent memory, if not ever. I would like to believe that you are trolling here, especially since there are a lot of Google hits that you must have missed that clearly show why he is notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all trolling, and shame on you for violating WP:AGF, which you should read. This isn't your first AfD for notability, it won't be your last. "Believed to be" is speculation, since proven to have been incorrect. If that's some sort of milestone in your world, it has little to no cachet outside of military circles. To put it bluntly, "...so what?" Another recommended read is Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. That is, if you're not too busy accusing other longterm editors of trolling or not knowing what belongs on Wikipedia...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if it came across as harsh, but the article also ran on "Did you know", which means that other members of the community also judged it to be notable enough to put on the main page, so that should also be noted here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete for not satisfying WP:SOLDIER. Other than the Time article, all of the media notice is about his retirement. I'd also consider Afd'ing Daniel K. Elder (linked at the bottom), who has weaker sourcing. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done-that one is a self-published vanity page-subject is original editor.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he does get some passing mentions in a few books [43] but none of the coverage seems to me to be significant (as evident from the fact that there is not enough to write a complete biography on him). Doesn't meet WP:GNG as far as I can see. Anotherclown (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - based on "what is he notable for". For being one of the last draftees still in service?, that had to happen to someone. Would we write an article on the position of being the last draftee; I don't think that likely. So I don't see how by extension we'd do an article on a person who held that distinction (WP:OneEvent and all that). GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POPxo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources totally fail in WP:DEPTH. Another article created by indef blocked editor user:BiH, many of whose paid creations have been deleted or are currently under AfD. The sources totally fail in WP:DEPTH.; no other reliable, independent sources found. Small, start-up web based operation, with only 13 employees, without better sources it fails notability per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IT exists, but the sources don't seem to pass muster for combined independence, in-depth coverage or reliability. If anyone wants to argue otherwise, please say which sources pass. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP As another editor said in a related AfD. A promotional article by a paid editor is an advertisement. Advertisements are not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. Jbh ^Talk 03:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's pretty uncomfortable how much this article looks like an advertisement. As stated above, the company has gotten a bit of attention from the news media, but it seems to pretty much fail to pass the bar in terms of notability. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, this came up earlier in the list of COI articles by BiH, and it does indeed fail wp:corp, being a company of no particular note, as per the references here -- and I do not find any others that would change my !vote. LaMona (talk) 15:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (draft and userfy if needed) as although News and browser found results, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nihil Pop Organization[edit]

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

I simply found nothing good with the best results here (only a few links) and it's worth noting the author made one other article, Manfred Jung which is also similar especially being unsourced. The best results for searching for Manfred Jung were this and this but I'm not entirely sure if that's him as this suggests there is a German doctor Manfred Jung. With this existing since June 2008 and the user's contributions interesting and all unsourced, this certainly needs attention. Pinging Calamondin12 for comment. SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I should note that I'm also nominating Manfred Jung so feel free to mention deleting both. Notifying LaMona and Calamondin. SwisterTwister talk 07:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, too, found nothing to clarify that this group even existed. Note the "probably in ..." in the first paragraph, which means that information about the group is entirely lacking to support an article. LaMona (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be a hoax. The Google results referenced above are almost entirely Wikipedia mirrors. No evidence appears for the existence of this group in any of its supposed countries (United States, France, and Italy). Nor do references exist for the organization's supposed terrorist tactics (which, by their nature, would result in attention). Similarly, the supposed "gigs, conferences, art exhibitions, meetings" (allegedly held in "most of the biggest American cities") would be noted in reliable sources if they had existed. None of the supposed youth-oriented propaganda can be found anywhere on the Internet. Calamondin12 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sourcing and substantial questions as to whether the organization ever existed. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Talk Radio - The Kyle Kulinski Show[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails on WP:GNG. Sources are unreliable. Hitro talk 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now I suppose as my searches found no better coverage other than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily find kyle's show on youtube just by searching secular talk on youtube or google, there's literally no reason at all to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaosjoker909 (talk • contribs) — Khaosjoker909 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Anyone can have a YouTube or Google page...but is there good third-party coverage for this? If not, this article is not acceptable and especially if it can't even sastisfy WP:GNG. I suggest familiarizing yourself with how editing works so you can understand what can be accepted and what cannot. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you need a third-party coverage, when you already have the original source? If your house is on fire, do you just stay inside until someone else sees the fire, too? Just go to YouTube, type in Secular Talk and you have all the informations you need, or do you think YouTube is just messing with all of his 188.000 subcribers and Kyle Kulinski is just created by CGI?

"A topic is presumed to merit an article, if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (from Wikipedia:Notability). Two of them being people (Kyle Kulinski) and web content (Secular Talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.64.24.30 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC) — 47.64.24.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We need third party coverage to establish notability. We follow guidelines here at Wikipedia and we try to adhere to the policies such as WP:GNG andWP:RS. By the way, Youtube facebook and twitter are most unreliable sources on Wikidpedia, actually Wikipedia is itself an unreliable source. Please read WP:RS and provide reliable citation. Hitro talk 20:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Kyle Kulinski never met the guidelines, it got deleted. This show does not meet WP:GNG that is why we are discussing it here. Why do you think it passes WP:GNG, explain it elaborately. Hitro talk 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are crazy man. Secular Talk has nearly 190,000 subscribers and is one of the most heavily trafficked channels in the TYT Network yet it doesn't meet your guidelines? If that's true then your guidelines are broken and it really needs to change. el8^0ne 06:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, it seems helps to have third-party sources because primary sources have the ability to be misleading something take companies for example (an article entirely sourced by press releases is not going to hold). Editing here is not easy but once you understand it it's better. We can draft this to your userspace in the meantime until it gets better coverage. SwisterTwister talk 18:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a YouTube channel, so how exactly would YouTube not be a reliable source in this case? it exists, it has nearly 190.000 subscribers and thousands of videos. You can't get more reliable than this, it's impossible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.214.124 (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — 85.176.214.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Youtube is not a reliable source. Watch this video on youtube. This video has 17.6 millions views. Subscribers or views don't make anything reliable. Plus have you bothered to read WP:RS? it has been mentioned several times here. Hitro talk 20:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Seculartalk. There was recently a ranking on google putting seculartalk on the top 1% of newscasters online. That by itself makes them notable. On top of that there plenty of sources which a simple google search for kyle kulinski verifies. Blatantly notable imo. Kleinebeesjes (talk) 13:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article and Kyle Kulinski article were created on the same day, the latter got deleted A7 speedily. I don't understand what kind of rankings you are talking about, at least give some references or citations. kyle kulinski google search emits twitter on the top..followed by facebook, some youtube videos and reddit.Nothing reliable. It does not blantantly make him notable imo. Hitro talk 21:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. The show has gotten some buzz lately, but nothing in-depth enough to meet WP:GNG. News had several mentions, but nothing substantial, and all from dubious sources. Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR returned nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with One15969. There's no real coverage of the show itself that I can find, except by promotional materials put out by TYT or the show itself. There's a bunch of mentions in largely unreliable sources and some borderline, but generally discussing a guest on the show, not the show itself. IMO needs at least one solid source discussing the show itself before it merits inclusion. Peregrine981 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Onel. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, merely being popular does not make one notable. This show doesn't seem to have attracted the significant reliable source coverage that we need. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources or assertion of notability. Having a popular YouTube account does not automatically make someone notable. Could this perhaps be redirected to List of YouTubers instead? Let me know what you think. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This whole discussion is absolutely ridiculous. I get the feeling some sort of personal agenda against Kyle is playing a big part in this demand to delete a perfectly accurate and verifiable entry. Anyone from Conservapedia here (Kyle has some beef with them)? Please stay there, if you can't handle facts!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.232.31 (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC) — 85.176.232.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Not notable by the standards of wikipedia. If you don't like those standards, this is not the place to complain about it. This is. - Richfife (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient indication of notability. To the IP above making accusations of conservative bias; find two news sources giving this show substantial coverage, and the article can always be recreated. After all, Wikipedia has no deadline. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wants to redirect this title to Work breakdown structure, go ahead. Deor (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Work package[edit]

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

This is a promotional article for Advanced Work Processing, a technique for which I can find almost no references except the publications of the Work Packaging Institute. Almost everything cited here is the work --see the adjacent AfD for Olfa Hamdi. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the article needs more work, but what justifies deletion? Is your objection on "Work package, the project management technique" or "Advanced Work Packaging, the new technique that is an improved piece of Work package"?

A simple Google Search shows:

A yearly conference about Advanced Work Packaging here
A for-profit company already consulting about the technique: Construct X
There is already Books sold about the technique here - No promotions (I'm not affiliated with anybody) :p
Construction Owners Association of Alberta explaining the technique.

I'm sure there's much more, but I didn't have a chance yet to improve the article more. That's why I opened a discussion on the talkpage in case anybody had other thoughts.

That is a credible enough topic to educate Wikipedia readers about it. ~ AdvertAdam^talk 04:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't this also a term in linguistics? Bearian (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to this previous version of the article or (as a very close second preference) redirect to Work breakdown structure. I am rather less than thrilled to be reminded that one of the easiest (if usually unintentional) ways to get mediocre but not terrible content on a fairly (but not blindingly) certainly notable topic deleted from Wikipedia is to add clearly promotional material concerning a somewhat related product to the article and wait for one or other of our more experienced and war-bitten editors to wander by and try to oblige. In this case, an earlier not noticeably promotional stub version of the article does exist, and there is a probably clearer exposition in another article of the topic in its standard context. So either of the above solutions would be better than straight deletion of the article - though I would have little if any objection if the last six months' edits on the current article were WP:REVDELLED. PWilkinson (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Work breakdown structure. PWilkinson's suggestion to revert to an older stub version is reasonable, but that leaves us with what is effectively a WP:DICDEF. As it's already discussed to a similar degree in the work breakdown structure article, that seems like a logical place to redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although redirect is not a bad idea. Looking at the history of this article, it began as an article about a workflow concept for project development (in 2008) and blossomed recently into an article with a clear promotional bent. Had it not taken that latter route it would possibly have lingered as a not-terribly-useful but innocuous article. As it is, it violates wp:promo but does not meet wp:corp. LaMona (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and LaMona. At best, redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:10, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha Lipkin[edit]

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

I came across this as a speedy and there's just enough of an assertion of notability via the beauty contest win and her working for OAN and AWE TV to where this might barely squeak by speedy criteria.

A search, however, showed that she is solidly non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines and this looks to be just a bit too soon for an entry. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree it's not a speedy, but yes, solidly non-notable at this time. Judging by the username of the creator, User:Tlipkin, this is an autobiography, and I have posted the usual discouraging note about that. Bishonen | talk 08:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found nothing substantial in my searches. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrant Park[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure if this is notable and my searches found nothing to suggest meaningful improvement, here, here, here and here, and mostly results that seem based from this including the first Books result which is a mirror. This has existed since September 2006 and has hardly gotten worthwhile improvement and there's probably no signs of improvement happening. Pinging the only seemingly interested user Mr. Stradivarius. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:COMPANY - no reliable sources/independent, in-depth coverage in sight. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to passing WP:GNG with very in-depth coverage from secondary sources. [44][45] However Re-write due to WP:COPYVIO of the first source which is currently copied verbatim. --Oakshade (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found two good books talking up the club in just two pages of google hits. Added basic templates and the books to the page - being neglected isn't a good reason for deletion. Earflaps (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NationMaster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In 2006 the AfD verict was "rewrite", well, nobody did so. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies)/Wikipedia:Notability (websites) requirement. While it is occasionally cited in mass media, I don't see any articles (newspaper or scholarly), nor books, discussing it. The best I found is [46], and I don't think that suffices. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as NationMaster gets cited as a source in terms of various books, blog posts, etc, actual discussion about the website itself seems pretty rare. I have to pretty much agree with the arguments in the nomination. Popularity is not the same thing as notability, after all. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, I found results at News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary but nothing that suggests better coverage apart from passing and otherwise trivial mentions. SwisterTwister talk
Delete per nominator. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Berlin[edit]

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

I see no claim or evidence of notability. ELEKHH^T 10:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 10:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 10:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went through and cleaned up the sources. Once redundant, irrelevant and sel-published sources are discounted or removed, there are three genuine sources: a Harvard news release, a Platform Architectura article and something in an architecture magazine. Three sources do not add up to a notable subject for an article.New Media Theorist (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than this. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any relevance in two prizes or living in Boston. --Keysanger (talk) 14:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo Charming Mother[edit]

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

No ref's, seems non-notable. Couldn't find RS. Jcmcc (Talk) 16:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's absolutely nothing and Kan Fukumoto's article also seems questionable. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are manga titles in Media Arts DB with the same name [47] there's nothing for the anime,[48] so not much hope for it to have independent notability in reliable sources.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am seeing no indication of notability, I have no opposition to a future creation if sources come forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Center (Brooklyn)[edit]

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

Non notable mall fails WP:GNG Me5000 (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable shopping mall. Quis separabit? 17:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is really marginal. If somebody wants to go to the hassle of trying to save it, I'd help. For what it's worth, I've been by this mall but never shopped there. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a good New York Times article [49] that goes into a lot of detail on the development of this mall. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A final relist doesn't hurt. Esquivalience ^t 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only coverage I could find other than that NYT article, were mentions in news articles, e.g. "shooting near mall", development near mall, etc. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one swallow doeth not make summer, one NYT articles can not establish notability in the total absence of any other coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperhygienist[edit]

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

Qualifies for deletion as per WP:NOTDICTIONARY and also because the topic does not meet WP:GNG. Source searches are only providing passing mentions (e.g. [50], [51], [52]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep but remake as hyperhygience as Books instantly found results including from the beginning of the past century here and others at Scholar. This may simply need some familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search suggests its a neologism with not enough serious coverage as to suggest notability. Lappspira (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced neologism. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BPI Energy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD was keep (but standards have changed since then) and sure it has sources and I could've let this pass by but my searches found nothing good to suggest better improvement (mostly for Building Performance Institute (BPI). I'm not sure how much activity they've had with their bankruptcy but, again, I found nothing to suggest much good and they seem to no longer be listed at the stock exchanges. Finally, emphasizing their low profile, this article has literally not been edited since August 2011 much less significantly. Pinging the only still active user Eastmain. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Once notable, always notable. The litigation with Drummond Company was commented on by two different lawyers at Lexology. Google News isn't very helpful, though. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG I'd appreciate your input here. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insignificant company--refs are essentially mere notices, or essentially primary sources on a legal case. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Esquivalience ^t 01:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG - non-notable energy co. The only real sources are lawsuits: the Chapter 11 and the lawsuit against Drummond, which failed. I don't see how that makes it pass WP:CORPDEPTH by any stretch. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Satoko Kiyuduki[edit]

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

Internet searches yield nothing in the way of notability for this person. They have an ANN page with three listed works and some mentions. One of their manga obtained an Oricon ranking, but if anything, it is the manga which may be notable and not the author via WP:ITSA. KirtZJ (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your research and your request for deletion, which has given me the opportunity to find more sources. First I'd like to note that both of her manga that have been translated into English, as well as the anime adaptation of one of them have all independently ranked on Oricon:

GA anime: http://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/491644/products/838072/1/
GA manga (ANN cache): http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2009-09-03/japanese-comic-ranking-august-24-30
GA manga again (ANN cache): http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2011-11-02/japanese-comic-ranking-october-24-30
Kuro manga (ANN cache): http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2012-02-01/japanese-comic-ranking-january-23-29

She also had an exhibit in Yokohama of original drawings for her GA manga that received some coverage in Japanese [53][54]. Kuro won a "Great Graphic Novels for Teens" award in English. [55]

Oricon does not cover console games (that I'm aware of), where she's also done notable work. In English, Siliconera and IGN have mentioned her work as a major component of Dept. Heaven titles[56][57][58][59], and Famitsu has done the same in Japanese[60][61] as well as covering the game adaptation of her GA manga.[62] Also, while it's a first party source, she was repeatedly included in interviews with the directors of the games she worked on due to the importance of her contribution to the visual identity of the games (links are to an unofficial translation since the originals aren't online).[63][64][65]

I agree that if only her manga were notable it'd make sense to not have an independent article, but since her work in manga and games are mostly separate and stand on their own I think it's appropriate to have an article for her as a creator. I think the sources here make a case for notability, but if you think not please tell me. (and sorry for not rounding them up earlier, looking at other manga artists I saw several with a single ANN reference unchallenged and thought that was enough.) --Polm23 (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:12, 1 September 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) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Polm23's findings. The references show notability for the author outside of her works. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. She's been involved with and created multiple notable series, so she'd pass notability guidelines on those guidelines. The rule of thumb is that if an author has multiple notable series, that would show notability for the author. Her impact in the gaming world is a side bonus that helps establish notability a bit more firmly, but she'd pass NBIO for just the two manga series. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the page as needing a translation from the Japanese page, which contains a lot more information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bribie Island Warrigals[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league team. Charlie the Pig (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TNT and start better as although my searches found links here and here, there's nothing to suggest better. SwisterTwister talk 06:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable team. Redirect should never have existed. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Bank[edit]

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

Another article created by indef blocked editor user:BiH, many of whose paid creations have been deleted or are currently under AfD. The sources are all primary; no other reliable, independent sources found. Small bank, with only 150 employees, without better sources it fails notability per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. As another editor said in a related AfD. A promotional article by a paid editor is an advertisement. Advertisements are not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. Jbh ^Talk 02:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 12:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet wp:corp. This must have been an article "in progress" when BiH was blocked because the references themselves are stubs. No idea whether there were live references that could have filled these in, but I don't find anything. LaMona (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olaedo[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. I can't find any evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 01:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator regarding the lack of notability. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since she hasn't even released her debut album yet, this seems like a pretty clear case of 'too soon' in terms of having an article. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabin Vaccine Institute[edit]

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

Purely promotional, this is another paid-for article by blocked user:BiH. Wikipedia cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert. The sources are either dead links or one primary source. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, let me say that I suspect that with a thorough search it may be possible to verify notability of this organization. However, the opening paragraph is a word-for-word wp:copyvio of [66], so it needs to be deleted, but without prejudice if someone wants to re-create an honest article. LaMona (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TNT and start better and although I found links here, here, here and here, it's best to start again especially with better information and sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately, per inherent problems from the article's start as noted, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this group may have enough reliable sources online to make a WP:N-compliant article from it, as-is it's more like an almost advert. If someone can recreate it from reliable sources, that's fine for me.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cherami[edit]

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

Originally PROD'ed but the tag was removed by an IP user without any claims [67]. No notability claims made in article. References are for the company's website/generic and make no notability claims. Does not appear to meet WP:COMPANY notability criteria. -- R45 ^talk! 01:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This organization doesn't appear notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet wp:corp. I can find proof of the existence of the company and its Android apps, but do not find third-party, neutral sources. However, it being a Trinidad & Tobago company, I will check back to see if anyone with access to local business media has had more success. LaMona (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as I found no better sourcing. SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Tae-yong[edit]

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

Objected PROD. Has many primary sources as well as sources of questionable reliability. I don't know Korean so I can't check if there is "presence of at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person" (WP:BLPPROD#Objecting). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not independently notable yet. He is a trainee at S.M. Entertainment, and that's pretty much it. He's appeared here and there in the minimal promotion the record company has done for S.M. Rookies, but there is not sufficient information in regards to Lee Tae-yong as an individual. — ξ ^xplicit 02:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent reliable sources. I was able to find a couple articles [68](in Korean) [69](in French) via a Google news search; they seem to be accusing him of internet fraud. However, I don't think they are enough to establish notability as either a musician or an online scammer. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a Notable Person KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 13:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will respectfully disagree.Lee Tae-yong not only is a trainee under one of the most powerful music labels in South Korea(which is well-known globally as well with a huge international fanbase),but he among other artists performed consistently in very popular events like SMTown shows.His company uploaded (in YouTube) some of his work that more than 1 million views and collaborated with Red Velvet in the song Be Natural which is formally a girlgroup band for which wikipedia already has an article about and refers to Taeyong.The website SMRookies that his company created refers to his basic bigraphical facts like the Name,Date of Birth etc. so it cannot possibly be incorrect since the company itself claimed it.Also I provided photographs for his magazine photoshoot and high school graduation which makes the facts obviously correct.Also he appears in a decent part of the show EXO90:2014 like it's shown in a reference,a video that was uploaded my Mnet which is a South Korean entertainment company which produces, broadcasts, distributes and provides a variety of music and entertainment. His band hasn't had their official bedut,yet but perform in big events.Taeyong is a popular personality,a rapper and a dancer.He is a celebrity that has recently began his career,performs live,takes part in photoshoots of popular magazines and TVshows and his rap is already known from YouTube.

If it's not possible to find relieble resources for this wiki article in the moment,can I rewrite the article sometime in the future when more sources(and reliable ones) will be available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaSaram (talk • contribs) 14:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Mnet's Youtube Channel a reliable source??? Wikipedia considers Mnet a reliable source,though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaSaram (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for MariaSaram: Wikipedia has the concept of WP:TOOSOON for artists like this who are promising but do not yet have established careers. The required reliable, third-party sources often are not available at the beginning of a person's career. Therefore it may be best to wait until there is more supporting evidence of the person's notability. You could re-create the article later when better sources are available. LaMona (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ LaMona Thanks for the information.I'll wait for a while then until the group makes its official debut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaSaram (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jannat Pakistan Party[edit]

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

Another article created by indef blocked editor user:BiH, many of whose paid creations have been deleted or are currently under AfD. The sources are all either dead, unreliable, primary, blogs, or very fleeting mentions. Bluntly said, the references are the result of scraping the Internet barrel. Without better sources it fails notability per WP:ORG and is only one of hundreds of political parties in the country (one for every million population). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As another editor said in a related AfD. A promotional article by a paid editor is an advertisement. Advertisements are not appropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. Jbh ^Talk 00:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course with the caveat that someone with better local sources may turn up worthy references. I didn't find any. As one of the existing references says, Pakistan has 182 political parties, and this is one of them. Other than that, I didn't find any information that would show the relative weight of this party against the others. None of the existing references gives more than a passing mention of the subject. LaMona (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now Article lacks reliable sources. sami ^talk 23:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I see nothing better here. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Patel[edit]

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

Non-notable bio based on self-published sources. The one main claim for notability, the MakerSquare school, has its own article, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Google search found no in-depth coverage (a few passing mentions and an apparently different second "Harsh Patel"). GermanJoe (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: pure promotional/vanity page. Quis separabit? 19:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I was going to suggest moving to the company's article but my searches suggest that company is not fully notable and the best results were here and here. As such, I will likely nominate that company article soon as there's simply not much for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and it seems like there is a lot of single-issue editing going on with this group of articles.Derek Andrews (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus for keeping the page, although it needs improvement. Aervanath (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian thinkers in science[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a weird article. I think the biggest issue is simple notability - it's a questionably encyclopedic article, and whether the intersection is notable enough is dubious. Secondary issues include a major demarcation problem - for most members of this list, Christianity has no part of their notability - and a simple failure to hold up its stated purpose - this is supposedly meant to be a resource to links on science and religion; you'd be hard pressed to find any significant discussion on that in most of the biographies linked. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this is not notable, neither is List of atheists in science and technology, List of Jewish scientists and philosophers or List of Muslim scientists. Most of the entries have some reference to the person's religious identity, which is an important biographical detail even if it is not the source of their notability. And if religion plays no part in the notability of scientists, neither does their nationality, or anything else except their field of study. Roches (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the people on here are actually notable as Christian thinkers? While the earlier sections might be workable in that line, certainly by 1401 the list undergoes a shift, and almost no-one from that point on is notable for Christian thinking at all, and it gets far worse as time goes on, with people notable for doing *anything* related to their faith getting very rare. This isn't List of scientists of the Christian faith (Christian Scientists would be something very different), this is meant to be "Christian thinkers". Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy with some sections, but the religion of even some of the later ones is fairly notable too. Lars Levi Laestadius is probably more notable for religion than botany. Pavel Florensky was a theologian. Among the living Francis Collins started the The BioLogos Foundation and several of the books of Owen Gingerich or Alister McGrath involve religion.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The first AfD indicates it was initially an article on Catholic scientists, which, honestly, might be notable. But, for all the individual sourcing for each entry, which I admit is at least acceptable, I'm not seeing any evidence that the topic itself is individually notable. Having said all that, it might well be possible that separate articles on Catholic scientists, Eastern Orthodox scientists, Anglican scientists, and so on might conceivably be able to establish separate notability, maybe. Also, in response to the above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might seem to apply, and, honestly, the simple declaration that other articles may not have specific notability without support isn't sufficient argument that they are similar. John Carter (talk) 00:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't expect the consensus to be much different the second time around on this one. The arguments about inclusion of one name or another are not an argument not to have a list article. The influence on science of religion is a complex one over the years, and it is clear that there have been a number of scientists that self-consciously identify themselves as of a particular religion, and it is clear that this is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources - it is frequently the subject of articles in both theological and secular sources. This isn't some sort of creationists anti-dinosaur nonsense. --ℕ ℱ 01:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this list add anything that the pre-existing categories don't? I don't see how this is at all educational. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed, and also curious how it is apparently asserted that WP:NOTABILITY is specifically met for this page. John Carter (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Merge Pruned Contents - We already have List of Catholic scientists, which actually has a specific historical context (the Catholic establishment's direct funding and support for certain fields of study going back decades and decades) and a specific limitation in terms of definition (what does or does not make one a 'Catholic' is something you can nail down, at least in part). When you broaden things out more and roughly lump together people regardless of whatever their career was (mixing together botanists and chemists with novelists and philosophers) as well as whatever denomination they were... it's too sketchy. "What is a Christian?" also becomes a major can of worms here-- if I believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, was a great man, was merely a man, died and has stayed dead, and that God exists but God only passively looks on at world events without intefering, do I still count (using the hypothetical I here)? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier List of Catholic scientists was deleted when I made this list. It was seen as "too broad" or something, so I created this to be more narrow and made List of Catholic scientists a redirect to an earlier version of this list. The Catholic one did not become an actual list, again, until 28 September 2011‎ when User:Akasseb did so. Before that, and some other events, I would have strongly defended this list. But I admit that the topic might be served by that list, List of Roman Catholic cleric-scientists, List of parson-naturalists, Quakers in science (which I created), List of Christian Nobel laureates, and List of science and religion scholars.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Roches considering that the Muslim list of scientists does not have much detail on the entries and the atheist page all it says is "Living persons in this list are people whose atheism is relevant to their notable activities or public life". It is pretty clear that many of the people on the atheist list are not really using atheism in their lives nor is atheism relevant to their "notable activities", but merely identified as not having belief in God. Of course, just like others have mentioned about "what is a christian?", the same could be said of "what is a Muslim?" or "what is an atheist?". There certainly are different kinds of atheists like secular humanists, nominal atheists and even religious atheists too (see nontheistic religions). These pages look like merely FYI pages of notable scientists who have had a particular worldview and that is it. Mayan1990 (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Excellent list. Well-sourced and coherent. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This is indeed an excellent list. It is true that many of the WP articles on these people have little or nothing to say about their Christian thought but that is simply a reflection of our lack of historical perspective. Many of these scientists, even well into the twentieth century, had influential publications concerning their beliefs and the article provides good references. Thincat (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the list would be better, if it would be limited to thinkers, whose Christian belief was a significant aspect of their work or general bio (verified by reliable sources). Several, especially modern entries, list thinkers, with their Christian belief not even mentioned in their bio article. See List of atheist authors for a better example, which atleast tries to focus on notable entries for both inclusion criteria. If "Christian" is used as trivial filter criteria without context, a list of "Red-haired thinkers" would be equally valid. Having said that, the current list is certainly improvable, and has a lot of encyclopedic and sourced content - a fixable flaw in its criteria is no reason for deletion. A few examples of entries, which don't clarify the significance of the person's Christian belief: Joseph H. Taylor, Jr., Ferid Murad, Don Page, Gerald B. Cleaver among others. GermanJoe (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"- the list would be better, if it would be limited to thinkers, whose Christian belief was a significant aspect of their work or general bio (verified by reliable sources)." That's what it originally was, more or less, look through the history at the versions from 20 November 2005 to December 2010. It has evolved since 2010 and I gathered what was initially wanted, mostly by me but others were involved, was seen as too restrictive. I'd be fine with renaming this list, as it is now, to List of Christians in science and technology as suggested. For more what I intended see my User:T. Anthony/List of Christian thinkers in science.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have more or less hit the nail on the head here, in a sense. As it stands, there is no easy way to determine either who qualifies as a "scientist" or who qualifies as a "Christian". Also, there is the very real problem that, for instance, a specific individual scientist might be among the more significant scientists associated with Messianic Judaism, and thus in a sense qualify for the list on that basis, while being otherwise comparatively less than truly significant to either Messianic Judaism or whichever "science" he might be affiliated with. Also, honestly, there are any number of individuals who in any field of "science" would reasonably qualify for inclusion on the basis of being active church-goers. On that basis, the list is going to be, basically, unmanageable, until and unless specific additional criteria are added, and it is all but impossible for me to imagine that there will ever be any real consensus regarding those criteria. Also, as stated before, there don't seem to be any specific sources establishing either the specific notability of this topic, or, for that matter, the criteria for inclusion in those undiscovered sources. Categories are another matter entirely. So, for that matter, are memberships in any of the various pontifical commissions for Catholics, or similar groups for other traditions. Now, I can and do see some potential merit and maybe utility to, for instance, List of Christian thinkers in geology, or "biology," or "astronomy," or any other specific disciplines, as opposed to the nebulously-defined "science." But those are other matters entirely. John Carter (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least change the name of the article List of Christians in science and technology, please. The curent article title is laughable. jps (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV title and a conjunction of two random categories. There's also the very serious problem of using historical figures to apparently inflate the extent of religious belief in science. Newton is listed even though he refused to take Holy Orders even though it was then mandatory for matriculation from Cambridge. Does that make him a Christian thinker in science? Science, as such, did not even exist in his day: it was natural philosophy. Virtually all the English Enlightenment figures will have had strong religious views, since the Royal Society was built from a core of royalist adherents to Anglicanism, centred on Wadham College, Oxford. This was as much a matter of tradition and politics as of religion. And that's the problem, really - when Hooke stated in 1690 that the fossils in the cliffs on the Isle of Wight were the petrified remains of creatures that no longer walked the earth, he was not making a statement for or against science or creationism, he was merely stating his views based on observation - the existence of God was implicit in contemporary society and there were few, if any, active atheists within the establishment, scientific or otherwise. Now, over 300 years later, science is profoundly different, and the nature of religious dogma in relation to science is also profoundly different. It's almost like a list of scientists who could ride a horse: in the 17th Century everyone could, in the 21st it's much less usual. The inclusion of natural philosophers, proto-scientists and others predating modern scientific thought is fallacious, and there's no obvious way of qualifying the list to make it anything else. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, his obituary noted that Clayton Mordaunt Cracherode (1730–1799) had never sat on a horse, despite being the wealthy son of a general. Not sure if you could get a list out of that. By "everyone" you mean well-off males in the Western world, of course. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: POV issues aside, I'm not seeing the unambiguous, objective, reliably sourced inclusion criteria required by WP:STANDALONE. The lead even states that the "list's purpose is to act as a guide", which is not what a list or any kind of article should be. Kolbasz (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The list is, per its lead, "limited to those scientists whose Christian beliefs or thoughts, in writing or speaking, are relevant to their notability" (my italics). No, no, that's not a description of a "List of Christian thinkers in science": such a list ought, if anything, to be limited to those scientists whose Christian beliefs or thoughts are relevant to their notability as scientists. Relevant to the science they did. The criteria offered are impossibly loose, and the texts introducing each period (does a list article normally have that much text?) are essay-like and completely POV. Delete per WP:TNT. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, but clean up to reflect some valid but non-fatal criticisms made above. I have no doubt the intersection is notable. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced list and i don't find weird article, there been several christians in science and many of them were religious too. the article is well-sourced, and there is several articles has the same topic as List of atheists in science and technology, List of Jewish scientists and philosophers no one has a word to delet these articles. If the users have a problem with title it's could be changed to: List of Christians in science and technology.--Jobas (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree that the name of the title of the article should be changed to List of Christians in science and technology. It would be as generic as the List of Jewish scientists and philosophers or List of Muslim scientists or List of atheists in science and technology. The scope of the article or lead should be adjusted because it is very well sources and of course very informative for people looking into examples of Christians who have made contributions to science. Mayan1990 (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually suggest starting on smaller, more focused lists first, possibly by period (taking into account JzG's comment above about how recent the use of the term "scientist" is), maybe individual discipline, and possibly denomination/faith tradition. Granted that Catholics are historically probably about 50% of all Christians, and that Catholics are among the most dedicated navel-gazers I have ever seen in terms of academic output (and I am a Catholic), the notability of articles on Catholic scientists might be easier to establish than that for other groups, and they may well be easier to provide the required indicators of notability for. John Carter (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the criteria for inclusion is too vague and too broad. Praemonitus (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but MOVE --> List of Christian philosophers and scientists. I see this as more of a companion piece to List of Jewish scientists and philosophers and List of Muslim scientists and philosophers than a counterpoint to List of atheists in science and technology. That said... I would also move the atheist article and re-work it so it fits better with the others. We need to figure out what the scope of entire set of lists is. What information are we trying to convey? (I think we want something more defined than simply showing that many scientists were Christian). Resolve the broader scope issue, and the ill defined inclusion criteria at this list will clarify itself. Blueboar (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't object to a move, but let's keep the philosophers out of it. All those already on the list have some claim to be natural philosophers; one might use that. Get into logic, aesthetics etc, & the list is very deficient. Johnbod (talk) 02:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most interesting and informative. Adam Cuerden says: "This is a weird article....Secondary issues include a major demarcation problem ..." It is a confused mess, it shows the diversity of minds and being "Christian" means; there is no way of editing entries in or out that would not be subject to conceptual attack. And that's a feature, not a bug. That's the way reality is and the way such a list must be , and thus it has a salutary effect on the reader. GangofOne (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scientists are notable for their science. Religious background and profession is a demographic detail that is noted in many biographical works and summaries. Lists collect info. This one has many parallels on WP. Keep them all, or delete them all. Evensteven (talk) 00:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, no one has mentioned the most relevant guideline, the notability criteria for stand-alone lists: a list topic is considered notable if it is discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. I find no shortage of sources discussing it as a list, but are they reliable and independent? It's debatable. Here are some of the ones I found:

Graves, Dan (1996). Scientists of faith : forty-eight biographies of historic scientists and their Christian faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Resources. ISBN 978-0825427244. - has a strongly pro-Christian slant
Morris, Henry M. (1982). Men of science, men of God : great scientists of the past who believed the Bible (Rev. ed.). El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books. ISBN 978-0890510803. - by “the father of modern creation science,” but consists almost entirely of well-sourced statements by scientists.
Miller, W. R. "Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers, Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science". - self-published, but lists a lot of sources
Scientist. "25 Famous Scientists Who Believed in God". - from a site which consists of many kinds of list of scientist
Dimitrov, Tihomir. 50 Nobel laureates and other great scientists who believe in God. - self-published, mainly quotes from scientists.

Do any of those count as reliable and independent? With the exception of the one by "Scientist", they are all pushing a point of view. Ideally, something better should be found. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a somewhat partial and slanted list of the sources used. You could remove all articles that use those sources and the list would remain rather long.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the sources used in the list, I didn't use any of them because (as far as I could tell without examining them exhaustively), none of them provide lists of scientists who are Christians. The sources are for individual scientists, so they don't support notability of the list, as I described above. Instead, I did the best I could to find good sources through Google. I'm already leaning towards keep, and I'd be happy to vote that way if someone could find a better source. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops my mistake, sorry for the misreading.--T. Anthony (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a scien tist who believes in God is not the same as being a Christian thinker in science. I don't see any credible evidence that most of these are considered notable as Christian thinkers - their "Christian thinking" does not, in fact, appear to go beyond mere belief in many cases. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The list has "evolved" over the years. The version I started, and remember working on, was more specific. As late as 2013 pretty much all entries involved people who had done works on religion/science, etc. The list looks to have been retitled List of scientists with Christian faith due to this. And that's probably right. A part of me was sad though, and maybe still is, that the list I really put a lot of work and even pride into will, regardless of what happens, only exist as something on one of my userspace pages. But maybe what I, and a few others, was doing was not appropriate for Wikipedia.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's not called List of Christian scientists because it's too much like List of Christian Scientists. But how about List of scientists who are Christians? RockMagnetist(talk) 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first nomination, don't delete it. It's well sourced and I did a lot of research on Scientists who were Christian, this article is true and legitimate. Should not be modified/deleted.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ministry of Gender Equality and Family#Controversy. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy about Korean Ministry of Gender Equality and Family[edit]

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

Appears to advocate political views without referencing. Contains a minimal amount of encyclopedic information with unclear wording due to grammar issues. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unclear who's critical of this Ministry, and why. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Likely delete as although my searches found some links here, there's not probably not enough for an article let alone a solid separate one. SwisterTwister talk 07:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, which already has a controversy section. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - textbook WP:POVFORK. shoy (reactions) 14:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, where it should be mentioned. Quis separabit? 19:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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