Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 April	11 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Sap[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I see mentions here and there, but nothing really substantial about him. The article was created by User talk:Alexandresap, so a likely WP:COI as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the level of sources needed to establish notability for a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this simply lists his business connections and my searches are simply finding nothing else better. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Cricket World Cup Qualifier[edit]

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

The event presumably will happen, but isn't this too soon? Mr. Guye (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep qualification for the next event, with a host already appointed, isn't too soon. And that essay only refers to actors and films. The-Pope (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes the WP:GNG, and less than two years away, neither WP:CRYSTAL nor WP:TOOSOON applies. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources state it is scheduled to happen, so easily passes WP:CRYSTAL and it's the precursor to the main event. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's going to happen, it has a host, the structure of the event has been confirmed, and an event that is effectively a prequalifying event for this is starting soon (21 May). Passes WP:CRYSTAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all the above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted by Graeme Bartlett, CSD A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject (but could be restored if elected). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Charles Anders[edit]

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

I curated this page yesterday after trying to fix some issues with it. However, a cursory Google search brings up no hits other than the few Congress links. I am not seeing any notability here beyond those hits, especially as he has yet to become the party nominee. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for the fact of being a candidate — if you cannot show and properly source credible evidence that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the seat (and I mean the Congressional seat in November, not just the party primary.) But nothing else claimed or sourced here gets him over any other notability standard — and the article was created by User:Anders katherine, an apparent conflict of interest since the subject's wife is named in the article as "Katherine". Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dilber Munir[edit]

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

Autobiographical article whose subject's main claim to notability is being related to someone else. Notability is not inherited. The coverage on the subject is minimal, as well. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing conceivably better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search:

WP:INDAFD: Dilber Munir

Delete. Neither a search on "دلبر منیر" or the above INDAFD search suggest that there are sources to meet WP:NACTOR or just WP:BASIC. --Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhjir (company)[edit]

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

My searches found nothing better at all including News, Books, browsers and Highbeam and also local newspapers Financial Tribune and Tehran Times so there's simply nothing to suggest convincingly better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 22:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't make any substantive claim to notability and I'm not seeing any coverage of it in third-party sources. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up any in-depth coverage at all. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kumho Asiana Group. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reclosed the AFD as Merge as the closer above for some bizarre reason closed it as Redirect...., Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KT Kumho Rent A Car[edit]

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

A non-notable car rental company. The refs show that it exists and rents cars but no notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as searches are not finding anything noticeably better. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect perhaps at best as this certainly is not solidly independently notable but mentioning this there may be acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 01:26, 18 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

(I've amended the comment above as the editor had changed to Redirect but made their !vote all confusing, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Merge into Kumho Asiana Group where it was a subsidary of that company before being purchased, No evidence of notability to warrant a seperate article. –Davey2010^Talk 23:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kumho Asiana Group. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kumho Asiana Group - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Solodukha[edit]

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

Non-notable and the only references listed are to other Wikipedia articles. — Music1201 ^talk 21:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although not a reader of Russian, it appears that even the Russian Wikipedia article references do no convey the notability required here. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's clear from the news search that I linked above that this guy is a star in Belarus, way beyong our standard of notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches found nothing better and the IP is not clarifying how this can be kept and improved now. SwisterTwister talk 05:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What needs any more clarification than the existence of hundreds of reliable sources saying that this is one of Belarus's top stars? for example this article starts with the words "Александр Солодуха и другие звезды..." ("Alexander Solodukha and other stars..."), this one includes him in the phrase "со звездами эстрады" ("with pop stars") when talking about a TV show in which he will teach amateurs to sing and sing duets with them, this is an article from Belarus's biggest news agency about his plans to star in a film about himself, and these are just from the first handful of those thousand or so news articles. And there's nothing in any policy or guideline that says that an article must by "improved now" to be kept. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Weak delete~~ [changed per indented comment that follows]. The current article has zero references with respect to notability. This is especially problematic for a BLP. It's certainly possible the subject is notable, but we need proof. When searching, the top hits are of unuseable sites, such as YouTube and social networking sites. IP 86.17.222.157, thanks for the links, but most were of little use. We need articles with substantial coverage, not just a few words. Your last link looks hopeful -- I had to rely on Google Translate, but it looks like a reliable source with significant coverage. Do you have any others as good as that? --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Thanks to Ymblanter for another reference; am changing to a keep !vote. I'm still relying on Google Translate, so will leave it as weak. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many sources, as you can see from the news search that I linked above, that it's difficult to make a selection. I really don't have time to wade through them at the moment (especially as my Russian is rather rusty - it's coming up to 40 years since I passed my A-level) but will refer you to this one, which has the headline "Как Александр Солодуха стал Суперзвездой" ("How Alexander Solodukha became a superstar") and contains the sentence "Имя эпатажного белорусского исполнителя нынче знает почти каждый житель Беларуси" ("The name of the outstanding Belorussian performer is now known to almost every inhabitant of Belarus"). That's not the sort of coverage that unnotable prople get. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I added a reference in the article to a Russian high-circulation tabloid, and there are others around.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, always preferable to deletion--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss World Chile 2015[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced, as all given sources link to the same Facebook page, which is not acceptable as a source conform WP:RS The Banner talk 21:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a prelim round. Legacypac (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing how this can become a better notable and improvable Wikipedia article, unlikely any improvements happening since it was in September. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss World Chile, the main article. SSTflyer 00:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silvio Simac[edit]

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

This was originally a PROD Questionable for any applicable notability and my searches found nothing better than a few links at News and browsers, but simply nothing better convincing. by User:SwisterTwister but declined by User:Atlantic306 as Deprod as possibly notable as national taekwondo champion. I don't think he meets notability for the latter (not the Olympic version of Taekwondo) and the claims are not supported. Also don't think he meets WP:NACTOR Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm my PROD as I found nothing convincingly better to suggest a better article. SwisterTwister talk 21:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's only source is a link to IMDB so there are no reliable sources, which means WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically an unsourced biography with nothing to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. There's no evidence to support his British TKD championship claims (especially when the claim is he won 14 national titles in 10 years at what would be an annual event).Mdtemp (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Descends[edit]

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

Non-notable recording by a non-notable band Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This album has been reviewed fourteen times by sources that Metacritic takes, giving it a Metascore of 70, so it passes GNG and NALBUMS.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 01:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music massage therapy[edit]

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

This is just a bunch of uncited original analysis with only a not very good source cited just to make sure this article survives for nearly four years. I can't find any other independent source significantly covering this topic, and the citation doesn't even mention the term. This first revision of the Wikipedia article saids that the concept was "Developed by Clodagh Irish from Waterford, Ireland in June 2012", but I can't find a single bit of that info anywhere else so clearly this article is about a concept somebody made up WP:ONEDAY. I can see the relation between Music and massage therapy, but I don't need an article mostly based on original research covering a non-notable topic to be reminded of that (or maybe I did, but... you know what I mean). editorEهեইдအ😎 21:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect into Massage therapy. — Music1201 ^talk 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one problem with that. This name specifically hasn't been mentioned in any reliable source, nor has the topic itself been covered significantly, so this seems unlikely. editorEهեইдအ😎 19:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as my searches are not finding anything better and there's nothing currently suggesting this can be kept with better signs of notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches could not find a single in-depth source about this topic. While there were hits, they were for the combination of the words "massage therapy" and "music", rather than as an integrated topic. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this is notable or widespread or anything other than something someone invented one day. Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Miss World Chile Titleholders[edit]

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

Content fork of Miss World Chile The Banner talk 20:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the page is basically already in the Miss World Chile article. Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is also OR and not a topic covered in RS. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is indeed a content fork as per nom FeatherPluma (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing suggesting independent notability for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article speedy deleted at 12:24 on 12 April 2016 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.projectonlineincome.com/2016/04/seven-phrases-to-keep-in-mind.html) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 20:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Money is in the list[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTADICTIONARY. I don't think this is encyclopedic. — Music1201 ^talk 20:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minute To Win It (Indian game show)[edit]

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

The program Minute To Win It (Indian game show) is just only started and it only completed 1 or 2 shows only. Also the reference which is added that's manoramaonline.com is the parent company of the channel which is airing the program. JackTracker (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aired on a national network. Unless the presentation was public access quality and people went home with yo-yo's or a five-pack of gum as prizes, it's sealed WP:N even by only airing once. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is established by independent RS coverage, not by where or how often it has been broadcast. I would have suggested a merge with Minute To Win It, but it is already there with almost all this info. Pincrete (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : WP:N gained as the show aired on a National Channel, Presented by a popular actress, Indian (Malayalam) version of a world-popular game show.--Helper V1 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep program on a major national network. Easily fits notability guidelines on that alone unless it's some sort of public access network that everyone can get on, which it isn't. Smartyllama (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable book by red-linked author--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cachaça, Um Amor Brasileiro[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability criteria for books. giso6150 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This may be because it is not in English, see what you can find from Brazilian websites. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did search for Portuguese sources before nominating and the only ones that I can find are synopses from bookstore blogs and websites; basically of the type, "We have this in stock and here is a summary from the back cover…" There is no equivalent article in the Portuguese Wikipedia. The author is in neither version of Wikipedia, even as a mention, which is no surprise given that this book (one of two that she has written) has only six copies listed on Worldcat. The original nomination (in 2008) contained claims that there "seemed to be" sources and that the book "has notability in" Brazil, but in eight years the article remains uncited. giso6150 (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A book that was written and published, like millions of others. And I'm with Giso6150 regarding search results. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 16:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches are not finding anything better. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Maxwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP, based entirely on primary and unreliable sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage in real media, of a musician with no strong claim to notability per WP:NMUSIC. As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which every musician automatically gets an article just because he exists -- real media coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability, must be present for him to earn an article. But nothing written or sourced here clears the bar -- and even if better sourcing and a stronger claim of notability can be shown, the article would still have to be rather substantially rewritten for WP:NPOV compliance. First version was about the same person, but was completely different (it tried and failed to stake his notability on WP:AUTHOR for a book, with his musical output relegated to an afterthought rather than the crux as it is here), so I don't consider it immediately speediable as a recreation of deleted content, but it's still not a keepable article in its current form. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and poorly documented.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I said with the 1st AfD as my searches simply found nothing better at all....again. Notifying 1st AfDers Bonadea, E.M.Gregory and ShelbyMarion. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this apparent self-promotion for a young man attempting to start a music career. I ran a news google search, and while I did find a gig listed in a small club in Ottawa, it was a lone listing, a listing does not support notability, and there is little or nothing that does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and last AfD. Article does not meet NMUSIC or GNG. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etteplan[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:NCORP JMHamo (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definately promotional because the first word has an external link linking to the company's website. — Music1201 ^talk 22:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as purely promotional. JIP | Talk 20:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing actually suggesting any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

County of San Juan[edit]

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

This appears to be a hoax or unverifiable. Legacypac (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless author can provide secondary sources confirming the existence of this title, not just that these individuals existed, article should be deleted. Also note that supposed coat-of-arms was created and uploaded by individual with a name very similar to the current supposed title-holder.--Maragm (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure if this is a hoax but this title is non-notable as per extensive search. Also, it is worth noting that both this page and a connected page, that of an alleged "Count of San Juan" titleholder, were created by the same user who goes by the name siredejoinville. Sheepythemouse (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails verification. If not a hoax, probably based on a misunderstanding. Srnec (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marquisate of Santa Rosa for the related article. Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails V. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gurinder Seagal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a musician which makes and sources no claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC -- as written, it literally just asserts that he exists, and is sourced entirely to passing namechecks of his existence in media blurbs about a collaborator of his, rather than to substantive coverage about him. Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which every musician is automatically entitled to an article just because he exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a proper claim of notability rather than mere existence, is required for the musician to earn a Wikipedia article. First version was about the same person, but was written and sourced differently enough that I don't consider this immediately speediable as a recreation of deleted content — but it's still in no way a keepable article in this form either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... again. He should check back when he hits the big time. Legacypac (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing better for the applicable notability, Delete again. Notifying 1st AfDers Gbawden and Davey2010. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - Nothing's changed since 2014..... He wasn't notable then and he's not notable now, Fails MUSICBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 08:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, as subject fails relevant guidelines. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Van Lang (website)[edit]

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

Was not online for very long, and I cant find sources for it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ouch. The article has no sources except the subject's website, and currently says almost nothing. Any sources are likely to be Vietnamese (which I don't speak). Unsurprisingly, I found no reliable sources. The Wayback machine has one hit from 2013 for the subject's web site; click here. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Larry's assessment is spot on - couldn't find any in-depth coverage on search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohabat Kar Da Lewno Da[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Contested prod. Bradv 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the article is a blocked sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nk Khan Sherani. clpo13_(talk) 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, non-notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nom, looks like the strange film articles that came from a sockpuppet about a year ago whose name I can't remember (though I do know one was Sadman or Sandman or something) Wgolf (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G5 as a creation by a blocked sock of Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs). Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom,unkown film.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 22:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing convincing for the necessary notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parallelities[edit]

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

Non-notable science fiction novel. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 05:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jashan (2016 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Speedy deletion template was placed by another user and removed by an IP. Bradv 18:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator of the article is a blocked sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nk Khan Sherani. The IP is likely the same editor. clpo13_(talk) 18:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Made by a blocked sockpuppet. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 as a creation by a blocked sock of Nouman khan sherani (talk · contribs). Sam Sailor ^Talk! 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing solidly convincing of notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no independent references, not notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse (rock)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Prod contested by author. Bradv 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two references and they are home pages of the band and their (supposed) record company. No, we we need multiple references to a reliable secondary sources all talking about this band and that they are actually signed to this record company. Prhartcom (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EasyShiksha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I'm also wondering whether the author wants this to be deleted, because he keeps adding promotional content and the advert tag. Adam9007 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find it extremely hard to find secondary sources for this article. Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are extremely scarce. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no in depth coverage whatsoever, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All cited sources are to the subject website itself or to the company said to have designed it, clearly not independent sources. I did a web search and could find no significant independent coverage. For some topics one might expect off-line sources, but for an article about a web site, the absence of online coverage pretty much says not-notable to me. Of course if someone presents reliable independent sources my view would change, but I honestly don't expect that. DES ^(talk) 21:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have speedied this were it not for the AFD. I've speedied the article for HawksCode, the parent company written by the same obvious COI editot Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Should've been speedied -KH-1 (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I requested for speedy A7 at very early stage but not getting how it's still here. GSS (talk) 13:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing Notable found in news or references to be here. Zedopuppy (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. From WP:BIO

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

The arguments for keep did not convince me how this subject meets this criteria, hence this subject is considered to be not notable. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hyde (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. The blogs mention his death, but no other coverage of the individual exists. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete not notable. VanEman (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as drummer of three notable bands, each having a wikipedia article,some of refs seem ok but better ones would help. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You have that backward. If a band has multiple notable musicians, it could be considered notable. If a musician has played in multiple bands (only recorded with two of them, so likely studio musician or touring drummer) it does not make the musician notable. If that were the case every L.A., New York and Nashville session musician would be considered notable, not to mention session musicians in other major centres where music is recorded (London, Berlin, Paris, etc.). WP:MUSICBIO does not support it. Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I do think you have a good point Walter, I believe he was a notable musician. The reason no other coverage happened before his death is because he was a drummer in the 80's to early 90's. There was no internet, therefore probably not many articles about him. But he was an important drummer for Christian Metal history, as is Jayson Sherlock and Lance Garvin. Though I will continue searching for articles about him independently, Vengeance Rising and Deliverance articles mentioning him. Metalworker14 (talk · contribs) 10:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a great deal of press that write about Christian metal. None of the writers wrote about this drummer though. That is why I argue that he's not notable. That he played in several bands is inconsequential. I can list several drummers who were written about in the era of Jesus music, but we rely on sources, not appearances to determine notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MUSICBIO, GNG, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Metalworker14 raises a notion that's common around Wikipedia: that if there's some excuse for reliable sources not to have given a subject at AfD "significant coverage," the provisions of WP:V and the GNG are suspended in his favor. This curious notion has no foundation in Wikipedia policy or guideline. If reliable sources about the subject (and not about any bands in which he played, which of course would fail NOTINHERITED) arise, I'm happy to change my vote. Otherwise, an article about the subject cannot be sustained. Ravenswing 13:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing suggesting the solid independent notability needed for this to be kept. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As already noted, the current references are insufficient to demonstrate notability of the individual. Notability of the band(s) does not confer notability on the individual. If anyone can find offline sources, go for it! Barring that, the article should be deleted. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. ((non-admin closure)) Mhhossein (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 09:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest[edit]

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

The subject of this article is covered better at Targeted temperature management in terms of current medical practice. This article as it stands, is a couple of quotes out of old sources. To the extent this is meant to be about cryonics this article is unhelpful and should just redirect there. But there is no here, here. This appears to be a failed WP:POVFORK. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC) (withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep Delete Well covered in TTM and could be included as an adjunct to Cardioplegia. The term may be useful, so a delete and redirect to TTM may be appropriate.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 17:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC) changing to keep per arguments below.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The use of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest in surgery is a separate practice in medicine from Targeted Temperature Management (TTM) also known as therapeutic hypothermia. All book references and PubMed references to TTM pertain to therapeutic hypothermia, not hypothermic circ arrest. Therapeutic hypothermia is the reduction of normal body temperature by several degrees after cardiac arrest or other neurological injury for purposes of facilitating neurological recovery by inhibiting the immune-inflammatory cascade that happens after injury. In lay terms, think of it like putting a cold compress on an injury to reduce swelling. In contrast, deep or profound hypothermic circulatory arrest is instituted as a protective measure *before* causing injury by stopping blood circulation to do surgery in a bloodless field. Not only are the names, mode of use, and purposes different, but the mechanisms by which cold protects the brain from injury during circulatory arrest is different from the mechanisms by which mild cold helps the brain heal after circulatory arrest or other injury. The protection mechanism of deep (and even colder) hypothermic circulatory arrest protection by reducing cerebral metabolic demand by suppressing brain activity. The healing facilitation of mild hypothermic *after* circulatory arrest is reduction of inflammation. They are apples and oranges. Cryobiologist (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cardioplegia is a separate subject again, different from either hypothermic circ arrest or TTM. Cardioplegia is cooling the heart to protect the heart during circulatory arrest in the heart during open heart surgery. During cardioplegia, the bypass pump keeps blood circulation going to the rest of the body, including the brain. During deep hypothermic circulatory arrest, the bypass pump is turned off stopping blood circulation to the entire body and brain. It's cerebroplegia to protect the brain during circ arrest, not cardioplegia to protect the heart. Cryobiologist (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone gets it that the use of hypothermia in CBP is something that cryonics folks pin a lot of their hopes on. But in actual practice of medicine, it is discussed together with TTM, and the use of hypothermia in CBP is not completely accepted and is being moved away from. PMID 24996609 - a 2014 review - actually identifies its use a a risk factor for poor neurological outcomes and PMID 25107725, another 2014 review, discusses the move away from DHCA (already two years ago) to more moderate or mild hypothermia, as these approaches are showing better outcomes. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are still confusing two separate subjects. DHCA is not hypothermia during CBP (cardiopulmonary bypass), nor is DHCA chilling people to get better outcomes after cardiac arrest (TTM). DHCA is using cardiopulmonary bypass to first cool the patient to 18 degrees Celsius or colder, and then stopping blood circulation all together. This is a completely different thing. DHCA is used by not just used by cardiovascular surgeons during aortic arch repair, but probably even more commonly by neurosurgeons doing repair on otherwise inoperable cerebral aneurysms. The resulting isoelectric EEG is not incidental, but deliberate and even augmented by barbiturates when necessary because the more effectively action potentials are inactivated during the procedure, the better neurological outcomes have been shown to be. I understand that you were led to this article because the cryonics article pointed to it as an example of survivable isoelectric EEG in medicine, but please don't assume this means that DHCA isn't established mainstream medicine. Cryobiologist (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the littlest, tiniest bit confused. You are making arguments on personal authority (your putative great authority and my putative ignorance) that don't matter in Wikipedia. I have cited sources and even the other editor arguing to keep below can see that this is one field. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking for proof of a negative, specifically that DHCA isn't called TTM in medicine. A PubMed search for "Targeted Temperature Management" produces 187 hits. A PubMed search for "hypothermic circulatory arrest" produces 2113 hits. A PubMed search for "Targeted Temperature Managment" and "hypothermic circulatory arrest" produces zero hits. There are plenty are articles in the world about spacecraft, and there are plenty of article about submarines, but it would probably be hard to find a specific article explaining that submarines aren't spacecraft. Cryobiologist (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

that is better, thanks. A search for ""therapeutic hypothermia" brings up ~500 pubmed articles that discuss both. Sure one is more emergency medicine and the other is more focused on CV surgery, but they do the same thing for the same purpose - neuroprotection. That article is much more developed than this one. I had redirected this to that, and was considering renaming that one as a next step, and then elaborating on everything there, when you reverted the redirect. That is still what I intend to do, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if content would need to be split back out once it is actually developed enough to be a decent article. So how about that? We could even work on that together if you like. If you agree I can withdraw this AfD, and we can re-do the redirect, rename that article, elaborate it, and see if a re-split is needed. What do you say? Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly rather work with you to make articles better rather than debate. With respect to the current proposal, when I read the abstracts, every article that comes up on PubMed under "therapeutic hypothermia" still refers exclusively to the use of mild hypothermia after cardiac arrest or other cerebral ischemia has occurred. For further corroboration of this exclusive meaning of therapeutic hypothermia or TTM, see this this review article for nurses which says

What is therapeutic hypothermia?
Therapeutic hypothermia (also called targeted temperature management) refers to deliberate reduction of the core body temperature, typically to a range of about 32° to 34° C (89.6° to 93.2° F) in patients who don’t regain consciousness after return of spontaneous circulation following a cardiac arrest. (See Exclusion criteria for therapeutic hypothermia by clicking on the PDF icon above.) Hypothermia also is used to treat newborns with perinatal asphyxia; however, this article focuses on its use in adults.

To see how DHCA doesn't fit into this, general explanations of DHCA are here and here. I can understand why you think the DHCA article is bad. It's quality and length should at least reflect the amount of popular press coverage this type of surgery has gotten, which is more than some other medical articles I've seen on Wikipedia with more obscure topic matter. Why don't we work on the DHCA article together, and try to take a break from "cryonics" debates for awhile if others will let us. Cryobiologist (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog: Are you withdrawing? Mhhossein (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable under this title. For example, see Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest in Paediatric Cardiology. The particular feature of this technique seems to be the arrest of the circulation rather than its continuation. TTM is much more general concept, as its name indicates. So, one topic is more particular than the other. None of this is a reason to delete anything. Andrew D. (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bickering, as correctly identified by Andrew D

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

There is no reason for this WP:SPLIT to exist; it is just a cryonics WP:POV fork. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's all wrong. The page started as being about a "standstill operation" – a technique of surgery in which the circulation is stopped. There has been some variation of title but that's just a matter of medical jargon and is no reason to delete. Also, splits and forks are addressed by merger, not deletion. But this page in question was created in 2006 while the TTM page which the nominator prefers was created later, in 2007, and so the claim of forking is therefore false. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We delete POV forks especially when there is plenty of room in the broader article. You don't seem to be arguing to benefit the encyclopedia but rather about something else (I do get it that you were unhappy over that Lens regeneration stuff). Look at this piece of crap article - two extended quotes - and see what links here. The dahling of the cryonics crowd, is what this is. Nothing more. No here here. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The connection with cryonics seems quite tangential as this is a technique developed for use in living patients. Here's another source about the topic: Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest. This further demonstrates the notability of the topic and the irrelevance of the cryonics connection. There's not the slightest case for deletion here and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That source is the same as which is already in the article (current ref #2, just a different publication).--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found that source in an independent search so I suppose it's a good one. But there's plenty more out there as Google Scholar provides over 11,000 papers when one searches for this exact title. This is more than ample to demonstrate notability and so, again, there's no reason for us to be deleting anything. The nomination seems to have its origin is some dispute about cryonics when this technique is more about cardiac and neurosurgery. The nomination is therefore disruptive in nature, as it fails to focus on the main aspects of the topic. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally redirected this very thin stub to the Targeted temperature management article and that was reverted by Cryobiologist here. Hence the AfD, which is based on our policies about overlapping content (NOTABILITY, SPLIT, POV fork). and is 100% rooted in the article that exists and how it should fit in the Encyclopedia that exists, and your further comments make it even more clear how personally-driven this is for you. Anyway. enough back and forth except... google scholar for a medical topic.

Facepalm . Jytdog (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination seems to be 100% battleground because it makes no sense when considered in terms of our policies for building the encyclopedia. If one doesn't care for Google scholar, then there are over 5000 search results in Google books. Again, these are more than ample to demonstrate the notability of the topic and the bizarre nature of the nomination. The nominator should please cease their attempts to shout down contrary !votes as this tends to make the discussion rather tiresome. I shall be retiring now to sleep but any further attempt to seize the last word should not be construed as changing my !vote which is now quite definite in opposition to deletion of this notable topic. Andrew D. (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could have done a merge request too. And I have no question that your vote will be changed. I am making clear how funky your vote is. But you are right, none of this is helpful an I will hat it. Jytdog (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominator's rationale(subject is covered at Targeted_temperature_management)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone is clear on the chronology, the DHCA article was never forked from Targeted_temperature_management, and Targeted_temperature_management never contained any mention of DHCA until today when a small passage was added concurrent with the redirection and then deletion nomination of the DHCA article. Merger can seem justified if it appears that overlap previously existed, but it didn't. Cryobiologist (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The DHCA page was created in 2006 (as "standstill operation") while the TTM page was created later, in 2007. Andrew D. (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean POV fork in time, I mean in function. Jytdog (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a redundant fork, not a POV fork. But, it appears that this is not a fork at all; they are just related articles. Andrew D. (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully disagree w/[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep . For now. Yes, these techniques are both about cooling, sort of like model rockets and Apollo Program are both about rockets. But in practice they are quite different procedures, are not done by the same people (it would be a disaster if they were), and have quite different goals. DHCA is done by major vascular surgeons, and it cools way down till the heart stops so (very fast) surgery can be done without blood pressure. The other technique cools a little to get some effects of cooling on the brain, but the goal is NOT to stop the heart. The DHCA article will probably need to be expanded when the EPR-CAT trial results come in. The emergency people are pushing the latter term EPR (Emergency Preservation and Resuscitation) for the trauma procedure in which a patient arrives to the ER with a penetrating wound to the chest which can only be fixed after an (otherwise fatal) period with no blood pressure, and so "DHCA" is induced emergently with cold washout (rather than in a controlled way, as is done for aneurism repair). But here, the U. Pittsburgh people who got the grant money to try this in humans (after success in pigs) want to call it something else. [2]. People trying for grant money always want to split so they can have their own cool term (sorry), and people who aren't getting the money always want to lump.
Speaking of lumping, it's also fine with me if the articles are merged, provided the DHCA material all gets put into the Targeted_temperature_management article and gets its own section (despite comments above, the DHCA material is certainly NOT covered in the Targeted_temperature_management article, one major reason being that DHCA sometimes does not aim for a targetted temp which is managed, but cools much as one can till before you are stopped by other circumstances).
But after EPR results are added, this thing is going to be too long, and somebody will be back here again, saying we should have a split per WP:SS, and somebody else will wonder whose idea it was to shove these different things together in the first place. S B H arris 01:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to clarify the POV fork thing - I am not talking about historically, but rather functionally - how these articles are used and interlinked within WP. This article is not even linked at the relevant articles about aortic procedures (which need a ton of work themelves) It is linked at all the cryonics articles. And I am very very aware of the difference in the procedures. What they share is a common approach (use of cold in medicine), a common goal (primarily neuroprotective) and common problems in rewarming and reperfusion. Was thinking of renaming the other to make it better "head" article like "Therapeutic Hypothermia" or maybe better "Hypothermia in medicine". From an encyclopedic perspective that would make total sense. I was fully anticipating a re-split of things as necessary. But right now the two articles live in different universes and this one is pitiful and underlinked. Jytdog (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that Therapeutic hypothermia (which already links to Targetted temp management) Hypothermia in medicine are both vastly better terms for a merged article than using Targeted temperature management, which is just wrong for the deep hypothermic arrest methods. Perhaps even better is Hypothermia for neuroprotection in medicine, since hypothermia in medicine covers everything to use of initial cold packs on sports injuries. Interestingly enough, some of the latter is probably what happens to brains in mild hypothermia. When it works, it probably works like those cold packs, not by altering metabolism (it's not severe enough to do much of that) but by altering other pathways (and damping others, such as inflammatory cascades). On the other hand, the deep hypothermia arrest techniques are very brute force metabolic approaches as can be seen by the fact that their duration time limits can more or less be calculated by the old Q10 rule: brain metabolism is cut roughly by 2 (actually more like 2.2) for every 10 C drop from normal temperature. There is no such principle at work in the mild hypothermia targetted techniques. In fact, sometimes they don't work at all! S B H arris 03:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my nomination is withdrawn. I hear the community and cryobiologist has done some work that makes this worth keeping. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While article has an informal tone, the !keep rationales clearly show he passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Sweet[edit]

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

The article contains quite some claims of notability, but not the reliable sources to back up those claims. The only two sources that aren't Sweet's own website or his book are this self-published piece which in turn refers to this, which for all I can tell is, despite the self-description, neither in Russian nor particularly reliable, and this publication by a ministry. The majority of our article's content is not confirmed by either of these weak sources, and removing unsourced and unreliably sourced content would amount to blanking it. My own sources have brought up passing mentions in international newspapers such as The Hindu, but not any significant coverage. Articles by columnists about Sweet, which wouldn't be reliable sources anyway, disagree wildly, from calling him a best-selling author to claiming that not many people read the works of Leonard Sweet. In summary, this is a rather promotional piece not supported by the given references, and better references that would allow us to rewrite the article do not seem to exist. Huon (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like it's a promotion. VanEman (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's a terrible article, reads like promotion which it may very well be. Appropriate to tag it for improvement, tightening, sourcing, etc. However, he passes WP:GNG. The distinguished professorships he has held (which may have been term-limited) may be enough to carry him past WP:PROFESSOR and his books seem to get reviewed widely enough to carry him past WP:AUTHOR (see: [3]; [4]). But the main thing is that there is secondary source coverage of him that is both in-depth and broad. See news search: [5] and note articles like this: [6] Plus over 500 hits in my quick proquest search, many on the first page appeared significant. One headline cued me in to the fact that he was President of United Theological Seminary, which puts him over the notability bar. In short, when confronted with terrible promotional article like this, we need to remember that politicians, creative artists, political activists and, yes, preachers and/or their fans have a regrettable tendency to create lousy self-promotional articles, but the tone of the article may mask real notability. As it does here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly source discussing his position within Evangelical momemnet (Sweeney, Douglas A.. 1991. “The Essential Evangelicalism Dialectic: The Historiography of the Early Neo-evangelical Movement and the Observer-participant Dilemma”. Church History 60 (1). [American Society of Church History, Cambridge University Press]: 70–84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3168523.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I originally thought of Keeping but was uncertain, keep and improve as needed. Delete perhaps at best as my searches have not found anything better and Draft at best if needed. Notifying DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. meets quite a few WP:PROF criteria; named professorship at major school (Drew is ma a major school in Theology), important honors--5 honorary doctorates, including from Oberlin; President of an important graduate school. Any one of these would be sufficient. Multiple books by reputable publishers, reviews available -- this meets both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, and all the books can be confirmed at WorldCat . SwisterTwister, WP:PROF is specifically specified in the guideline an alternative to the GNG, so whether he meets GNG is irrelevant, but he almost certainly will if appropriate sources are searched. A little rewriting is needed, but it is't all that promotional .Huon, Jesus: a theology is in 262 libraries, which is quite a bit for academic theology, The Ministers Wife is in 571, and The Evangelical tradition in America is in 556, so there's no basis for saying they aren't read. (The source for the figures is Worldcat at [7]. the standard database for books.) Unless one thinks the academic study of religion unimportant and unworthy of coverage in an encyclopedia , there's no basis for this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to improve the article. It's not me saying Sweet's work isn't read, it's one of the rather few third-party sources (of dubious reliability - it's an opinion piece, but in a national newspaper) I managed to find. If this is kept I'll simply remove the unsourced and unreliably sourced, promotional content from the BLP, leaving us with a one-line stub unless someone else can present sources that would actually allow us to write about Sweet in some detail. I don't have access to the source E.M.Gregory found, so I can't make use of that myself. Huon (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: as holder of a named professorship and a prolific author, deletion should be out of the question. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A rough headcount shows that "delete" and "keep" opinions are about equally divided, 14 to 13. As is usual in discussions about controversial topics that draw a wide non-Wikipedian audience, I'm discounting opinions by IPs and very new accounts to filter out meatpuppets, sockpuppets and canvassed individuals, so as to increase the likelihood that the outcome reflects the consensus and practice of the community of Wikipedia editors. This gets us an adjusted headcount of about 12 "delete" to 8 "keep". Assessing the strength of argument in light of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I have to discount a few other opinions because they do not address the policy-based rationale for deletion, such as the "keep" that just likes a particular article Auerbach wrote, and give less weight to opinions that merely assert, rather than discuss, the subject's (non-)notability. The remaining opinions, by mostly experienced editors, paint a picture of a journalist who is "borderline" notable in Wikipedia terms, with editors disagreeing in good faith about whether the coverage about him is sufficient to warrant inclusion. That's not something I can determine by fiat, and therefore, even though we have a numerical trend in favor of deletion, we do not have consensus, resulting in the article being kept by default, for now. I recommend that any renomination takes place at least a few months from now, which might reduce the risk of distraction by Internet drama. Sandstein 07:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Auerbach[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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

(Previous deletion discussion was for an unrelated subject with the same name).

No indication from searches that the subject is covered by multiple independent, reliable sources. Sources cited in the article are predominantly written by the subject and are in any case only listed to note their work history or opinions. The only independent source cited on the page is an awards landing page which lists Auerbach's employment at Slate.

They do show up in Google Scholar/Books, but that's partially their patents (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=l1LvKQIAAAAJ) and books referencing their articles (I've spot checked some of them and they don't appear to go beyond passing mentions). Protonk (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not actually a 2nd nomination, since the "other" AFD for for a different person with the same name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory: That's literally the first line in my statement above. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. My error. In trying to figure out who Auerbach is and what's behind the unusual interest in this page, I had begun with the article's talk page, and was surprised to find that the AFT at the top wasn't him at all.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. He gets quoted sometimes in other people's articles, but that's not enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and NinjaRobotPirate.--Jorm (talk) 00:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has 4 clear references, each of which are independent reliable sources: Slate, Reuters, New America and The Association of Magazine media. 118.101.253.77 (talk) 01:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three of those four references are self published and the fourth is a biography on the subject. None of them are what could be considered "solid" sources, and three of them shouldn't be used. They do not establish any kind of notability.--Jorm (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jorm, that is not correct. See below, for Elaenia's comment. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are articles/blog entries written by the subject and there's no indication of notability based on search results. Elaenia (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The references are certainly not reliable third-party sources. This is the website of an organization where he is a fellow, this is one of his articles in Slate (a fine publication, of course--but it's not publishing about him), this is...who knows, but it's not a reliable media outlet, and this is another article by him. We need third-party references that discuss the subject. We don't seem to have any. Until we do, delete. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at the references added by Draco, I think he's a bit more notable than he was before--the Atlantico piece, while it does not directly discuss him as a subject, it does cite him as authoritative in that field. The other three mentions are just too brief to add up to notability as in passing the GNG. I suppose I'm going weak delete. But Draco, thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This entire dustup seems to have sprouted from a Twitter spat, not any genuine concern for encyclopedic integrity.24.127.162.236 (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that were true (I'm not on Twitter, fortunately), it doesn't affect the basic argument. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except if it hadn't been for that Twitter dustup, no one would have bothered with this retaliatory AfD. 2601:602:8D00:19:7DEF:9A9A:3E5:4BBD (talk) 04:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't following the Tweetdrama, but after taking a look, unless I'm missing something, this AfD precedes it. Auerbach's Twitter history is peppered with mentions of Wikipedia, but the "dustup" is, I presume, what started with this tweet on 4/11. This AfD was opened 4/10. Obviously there are people coming to this thread who became aware of it through Twitter (I note that it didn't see any participation until 4/13), but it clearly wasn't retaliatory. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be the subject of independent, reliable coverage. PeterTheFourth (talk)
Delete Per nom. Subject does not meet wikipedia's notability criteria. 24.212.171.134 (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly meets wikipedia's notability criteria. 109.255.136.28 (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep (see comments below) - I'm a little surprised, but I'm not seeing sufficient coverage about the subject to satisfy WP:GNG. Several mentions of particular articles, plenty of primary sources, plenty of social media, but not enough of the kind of sources we need. Happy to reconsider if someone can point me/us towards sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to keep. I went back and did another search with WP:JOURNALIST #1 in mind, rather than searching for articles about Auerbach and found enough to satisfy it. So long as we consider someone notable for being "widely cited by peers", he is indeed notable. I guess I don't evaluate journalist AfDs all that often. Here are some of the sources I found which demonstrate this, and these look to just be scraping the surface: Daily Mail, Fast Company, Huffington Post, Washington Post, The Guardian, Tech Crunch, Los Angeles Times, Columbia Journalism Review, Vice Motherboard, Aljazeera, Washington Post again, The Verge, Bloomberg View... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need to say something about the direction this thread has taken via some of the keep votes. Any !vote based on Wikipedia public relations rationales should be completely disregarded. It's been shown that this nomination was not a retaliation, having been initiated before the recent Twitter mess. I presume some participants are here because they don't like Auerbach and some are here because he brought their attention to it and they wish to defend him. Neither is great, but there's no reason whatsoever this discussion shouldn't stick to the question of whether or not the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability criteria. If someone has a strong bias either way, that's not ideal, but it's ok for people to have an opinion if they also have strong arguments. The problem is when opinions take the place of substance (where substance=arguments as to whether notability criteria are satisfied). What is total nonsense is the idea that because he criticizes Wikipedia and is willing to rant about this AfD to his Twitter followers, that this article should somehow be treated with kid gloves for "appearances". Absolutely not. He's notable; keep the article because he's notable; weigh the arguments about notability; keep PR out of it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No mention of sources in talk page, no attempts to improve article. Should give time to improve sources or at least make an attempt before deletion. Fangrim (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Apart from the articles that this person has written for the magazine company he works for, I don't see any secondary independent reliable sources that asserts significant coverage exists and that WP:GNG is satisfied. The sources listed in the article appear to either be primary sources (such as this one), or simply mention the person's name and is not in-depth coverage (such as this one). The other two sources are simply article that the person has written and do not count as reliable sources at all. Also appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR as well. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Issues of timing aside, the subject fails WP:GNG pretty clearly. He's obviously written a ton for many reputable publications, but no reputable publications have written about him. I dug around a good amount and can't find much of anything beyond things like forum discussions. I can't even really find non-RS blogs talking about him. Of the currently used references, two are articles written by Auerbach, the New America source is not independent of the subject, and the last is just a directory listing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Addendum: I could see a redirect to Slate (magazine) as an option, as the page is getting a few hundred hits per month, meaning it's a possible search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After further consideration, and especially in light of Marteau's comments below about Wikipedia's reputation, I'm changing my position. This is a borderline case, and deletion could actually harm the project, while providing few benefits. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The allegations that this AFD is motivated by anything except Wikipedia policies are frivolous, unfounded, and a violation of our core principle assume good faith. They should be struck from this page as disruptive and irrelevant. However, I believe that writing for a prominent publication like Slate confers sufficient notability for an article. Gamaliel (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it doesn't. That ship sailed long ago. Just being a good writer at a top publication, or good at anything, doesn't confer notability. Even two profile articles about him could be sufficient, but apparently they don't exist. I'm having trouble understanding the keep votes in this discussion, its not like we're dealing with a new issue here. Cf. Andrea Peyser, an article that for some reason caused amusement elsewhere when I wrote it, but there have been a number of articles written about her.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the "GamerGate Controversy" article all over again. The material on the article isn't extensive or inflammatory; corrective action of the complaints of unreliable sources are a notation to provide better sources, not to delete the article - this is clearly a retaliation tactic. — . cmatrix4761 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cmatrix4761 - "GamerGate Controversey"? "Retaliation tactic"? I think your reasoning and assertions are a bit over-the-top here. I highly recommend that you take a look at Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, as well as Wikipedia's notability guidelines regarding authors. These are the two guidelines that most editors will reference or review while they research and make a decision regarding this AFD discussion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found four third-party sources in renowned publications just by rummaging around a little bit just now. Added to the article. The Atlantico source is particularly lovely. Draco^E 16:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait...wait...Draco, you're suggesting keep...so that means you're a GamerGater? No, an anti-GamerGater! No, an anti-anti-GamerGater! It couldn't be as simple as having found good sources that I now need to read and maybe revaluate my opinion... come on, we're all partisan hacks here. Play along please. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The Atlantico piece is trivial; it mainly focuses on the game and gives no commentary on Auerbach himself. The Verge has just a single quote from him; Numerama and Planet F each cite him once in passing. In short, while these all appear to be reliable sources independent of the subject, none of the coverage in them is significant; there's no analysis of the subject. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torchiest, that is not quite true. The Atlantico article quotes Mr Auerbach at length and even mentions his sister and brother. As for the other sources, let's just say that it would be nice if the other contributors to this discussion had a look at them and made up their own minds.

Drmies, you know me so well. I've got gamer friends, software developer friends, and a child who used to live for WoW and Minecraft. Oh, and I was also the gamergaters' bête noire du jour for a hot minute back in September 2014.

Have you seen Mr Auerbach's recent tweets? Look past the hyperbole and you'll find another BLP "subject" who was hurt by WP. I don't enjoy seeing people get hurt on here, even if they appear to be masochists who think that having a Wikipedia biography is all that. David Auerbach may eventually wake up to the fact that having to examine the recent additions to his article for libel and trollage for the rest of his life is not as much fun as advertised. He may find himself declared the dad of a baby with a fellow journalist he's just good friends with. Far-fetched? Try me. Check how long it took you and your colleagues to "fix" that outrageous example of BLP feckery. There's too few of you to even notice this kind of carp. WP is among the most irresponsible websites on this planet, and, yet, as this case proves, people still seem keen on being listed as notable on here.

I'm actually hoping that you guys will decide to delete Mr Auerbach's article so as to ensure that another Wikipedia critic will help you all dig yourself some more into that warm and comfy grave you're all busy working on. Draco^E 18:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The piece in the atlantico is basically them re-blogging his slate article. Any detail there (including the biographical detail you mention) about Auerbach were in his slate column--I checked. That's not a source focusing on the subject at all. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hai, Protonk. You mean to say that Atlantico found Mr Auerbach's piece in Slate important enough to quote from it? Got you. You know what else I got? The fact that you, as an employee of a WMF spinoff, get to nominate the biography of a Wikipedia critic for deletion. That has more than a whiff of impropriety about it. Draco^E 04:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stop with the bullshit conspiracy theories, please? I !voted here, and the subject then went on a multi-tweet screed about an imagined conspiracy because I have talked with Gamaliel at some point in time. It's pointless and incorrect. This article should never have passed the first order of page curation and validation; I'm frankly surprised that we're even having this conversation. So please: let's stop with the aspersions. They make you look bad; no one else.--Jorm (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draco's right - whatever the outcome it would be better if we avoid the appearance of impropriety . Given the number of current (and former) WMF-ers who found their way to this obscure little article we're not doing a very good job. Maybe a friendly push or two will help. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right. I haven't worked at the Foundation in over a year and a half and I'm probably the last person to be singing its praises overall. I had no idea who the fuck this guy was, or that he was a "Wikipedia critic" (who isn't?) and ProtonK isn't a WMF employee nor has been, ever. But keep barking that conspiracy theory. It's really believable. --Jorm (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG Ylevental (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For this one article alone. Global warming is the most important thing in the world. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because you like something the subject wrote does not a strong or valid keep rationale make.--Jorm (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think people who have written RS articles exposing the tragedy of global warming deserve special treatment, WP should adopt such a policy as a public service. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:GNG fail. There is not enough third-party coverage about David Auerbach. SSTflyer 12:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The notability guidelines most directly applicable here are WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. I have just asked the subject at his userpage (he has an account at Wikipedia) for assistance in locating high quality sources that cover him directly. As he is the subject he would be in the best position to know about the existence of such sources, but it would be decent of us to allow him at least a few days to respond. Closing admin please take note: The subject has raised concerns that the underlying motivation of some !voters at this AfD may be revenge-based rather than policy-based. I think the discussion so far has been well within the realm of policy, so I only raise this so that it can't later be said that this issue was not considered in the closing of this AfD. -Thibbs (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Basically per Marteau. I haven't heard back from the subject so I assume he's not interested in engaging. The concerns Torchiest raised mirror mine closely, but this is a borderline case and I'd rather err on the side of caution given the nasty reputation Wikipedia is gaining as a bludgeon to be used to victimize cultural/political enemies. I highly doubt that the nomination or the vast majority of the delete votes were tainted by impure motives, and I want to be clear about that, but Marteau's cost-benefit analysis which emphasizes the appearance of this AfD is convincing. There is very little harm in keeping this stub even if it means following IAR. -Thibbs (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am new to deletion discussions, so could someone help me understand how articles like Emily Temple-Wood pass (OTHERSTUFF aside) but so many delete votes show up for an article about a prominent and influential Wikipedia critic? If Mr Auerbach wrote positively about Wikipedia would we see different votes? And to boot a nomination started by a WMF affiliate employee? With hounding of participants by an ex employee of the WMF? This article subject is clearly worth a listing in our project, but I won't bother to cast a vote. It seems like the powers that be have already decided what willl happen here. I hope this is a trend that will not continue. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mr Ernie: There are a few ways you can determine the difference between this and another article which seems to have been chosen at random. First, you can review the deletion discussion for that very article and review the comments left by editors. Second, you could look at the sources cited (or those available via a search) and note that there's at least a half dozen sources in that article which cover the subject in detail--a requirement for the general notability guideline that Auerbach doesn't meet. Protonk (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the more I think about it, that's not such a great comparison, because ETW's article was mostly being discussed around WP:BLP1E, a different, somewhat more restrictive guideline which applies to subjects who have had a lot written about them for one event and not others. The deletion arguments there focused on that because the GNG was already met. Had she not met the GNG at all, the discussion would've been a lot shorter. Protonk (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ernie, the basic issue is that the subject here hasn't had major newspaper profiles written about him, while Wood has. With Wood, the debate focused on BLP1E, and I don't think her article was wise to keep. I've written articles on many journalists, and I wouldn't have created one on Auerbach, as it wouldn't meet WP:GNG. If anything, the swirl of controversy surrounding this discussion is more likely to result in an incorrect keep. I haven't "voted" either because if the closing admin is weighing policy and the strength of the arguments, delete is the correct outcome.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is admittedly a borderline notable subject, however, the benefits of having one fewer stub in the encyclopedia is FAR outweighed by the resulting public appearances of impropriety and resulting appearances of agenda driven or politically driven edits. Appearances matter. As they say in politics, this is a case of "bad optics" and I say that if the cost of avoiding such bad optics is keeping one measly stub, keep the stub. Marteau (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear!E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still not solidly convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in RS about the subject to pass NAUTHOR or GNG. There is not even a good claim of notability in the article. He writes for Slate. So? He thinks Wikipedia is screwed up. So? How is this significant? The article is a stub because there is nothing to say about this person not because there are RS out there on which to base an article on but are not in the article yet. This is the very definition of non-notable. Jbh ^Talk 13:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His work/articles, including his writings about Wikipedia, gets significant secondary coverage [8], making him a sufficiently notable journalist to have an article. In addition to which there is the fact (not a WP policy-based argument, merely a fact) that deleting a journalist notable in part for his published criticism of Wikipedia makes Wikipedia look as unreliable as he says it is. Let's not be so thin-skinned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per E.M.Gregory. Satisfies GNG. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 18:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does he pass GNG? The link E.M.Gregory noted has only passing mentions and quotes, and those from Brietbart or, his home publication, Slate. What significant coverage about him is there? I will happily change my !vote if some can be shown. Jbh ^Talk 19:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down that link to find discussions of his articles in Forbes, Reason (magazine). Here's The Atlantic citing his "masterful" review of a new Pynchon novel [[9]]. The argument here is [WP:JOURNALIST]] # 1. "widely cited by peers." More out there. But I am also concerned that the animus apparent in this AFD may be due to the fact that he is known for his widely cited criticism of Wikipedia, i.e. WP:COI, and it just makes us look silly and yo know, like we WP:OWN Wikipedia because we edit here and so we delete the bios of our critics. I'm not accusing any particular editors of bias, just saying that this is how this debate will look to others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.... One Forbes article has one sentence "Blame Apple" wrote David Auerbach of Slate and this one [10] is about a different person unless he is a RAND policy analyst. The Atlantic article you link says only "Since you can read a definitive review of Pynchon's novel by David Auerbach..." and nothing else. This does not come close to any of our notability criteria. Jbh ^Talk 00:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auerbach has several more strings to his bow than have yet comeo out in this discussion (or on his page.) See: [11], [12], [13]. Not to mention a forthcoming book being published by Pantheon Books....E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's tried hard to get marginal authors' articles saved on many occasions, I know that simple listings of upcoming lectures and the like are not sufficient. The New America link is already in the article, and is not an independent source. Perhaps if his book gets coverage, this could be recreated. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Torchiest and JBHunley, My point is that this is one of the ways to separate notable journalists form non-notable ones, and that Auerback can be seen as somewhat notable. Notable journalists win fellowships to spend a year writing a book at a think-tank; get a contract from a major publisher; are invited by universities and major public forums to speak and be panelists; and other writers endorse their work by citing it. In Auerbach's case, on a great many of the topics he has written about, you easily find people citing him in books, or, for example, this week, in The Verge: "By then, as Slate tech columnist David Auerbach wrote, Reddit was widely seen as "a cesspool of hate in dire need of repair." [14]. Notability for a journalist is cumulative.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credability for a journalist is cumulative however, in the Wikipedia world, WP:NOTABILITY is not. Many of the keep votes seem to rest on a special pleading to avoid bad optics. Optics may inform editorial discression in borderline cases of things like DUE etc once a subject passes the threshold for inclusion but are in no way an appropriate reason to do an end run arround established content guidelines. Jbh ^Talk 16:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now wait just a cotton pickin' minute here... nobody is trying to "do an end run" around any guidelines. First of all, WP:NOTABILITY is a "guideline" not policy. In fact, it says right there on the guideline page: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply".

Note the "common sense" and "occasional exceptions". This is a borderline case, and reasonable minds can disagree, but implying that I am trying to pull a fast one (or an "end run") is kind of offensive. There is a case to be made for inclusion, and it is not as black and white as some here are implying.

What we have here is, in my opinion, an "occasional exception" requiring "common sense". The "common sense" here is, the cost versus benefits. The benefit here to deleting this article? One less stub, and that's about it. The cost? Perhaps Wikipedia's reputation. That's it, in sum. Editors here are willing to risk reinforcing the encylopedia's reputation for deleting the articles of critics for what exactly? One less stub. What a cost for such a stupendously small benefit.

What exactly IS "Wikipedia's reputation"? The encyclopedia has a reputation for putting up for deletion the articles of people and organizations that criticize Wikipedia or the causes its editors advocate. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: editor "Cwobeel" submits the article of a webzine critical of Wikipedia for deletion. His timing was impeccable... he submitted it for deletion literally within a matter of days of The Federalist's criticisms of Wikipedia. There was a certain amount of attention payed to his action amongst Wikipedia watchers and some media watchers. This event damaged Wikipedia's reputation and for what? To have one fewer stub? Was that the benefit Cwobeel was seeking when he put the reputation of the encyclopedia in harms way?

We have a similar case here. A media critic of Wikipedia suddenly finds his article up for deletion. Yes, it looks horrible, and has terrible optics. And yes, deleting it will seal Wikipedia's reputation for vindictiveness. And for what? So there can be one less stub? Astounding.

Let's show some "common sense" here. In a borderline case for inclusion, where the very reputation of the encyclopedia is on the line, let's give that reputation at least a little weight in our deliberations, whattaya say? Marteau (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments of User:Marteau, above, who wrote: Keep This is admittedly a borderline notable subject, however, the benefits of having one fewer stub in the encyclopedia is FAR outweighed by the resulting public appearances of impropriety and resulting appearances of agenda driven or politically driven edits. Appearances matter. As they say in politics, this is a case of "bad optics" and I say that if the cost of avoiding such bad optics is keeping one measly stub, keep the stub..E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also prize: [15].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the 'prize' is a nom, not a win. 78.145.23.228 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There speaks a man who has never been shortlisted for a prize.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources seem sufficient to establish notability. Artw (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG & WP:AUTHOR, and I find the special pleadings to keep the article for appearances sake to be unconvincing 78.145.23.228 (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not so clear. What is unusual about his page, compared with run of the mill AFD discussions, is the lack of interest on the part of editors in searching for sources. Granted, it's tricky, since the best keywords to use when a guy has had multiple patents granted to him, has both worked in and written about relatively arcane fields of software development, and has a name that he shares with several people, including a businessman involved in IT, and at least a couple of published academics. Nevertheless, I am used to AFDs re: Authors, journalists, and scholars in which editors search for and bring sources to the discussion. We are under scrutiny, and it's not admirable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deletion argument failed to convince me how this would fail our notability guideline as per WP:N or WP:BIO. While the coverage of the subject is not great enough to turn this into a FA/GA, there's is minimal enough coverage to meet the guidelines for WP:N. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Devouard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Florence Nibart-Devouard (2005)
Articles for deletion/Florence Nibart-Devouard (2006)
Articles for deletion/Florence Devouard (2015)

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

Article is nominated for deletion since subject is not notable outside of her Wikimedia involvement and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. No favoritism should be displayed to insiders no matter how senior. Mohsinpathania (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC) — Mohsinpathania (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - For those of you keeping score at home, this is actually the 4th nomination of an article on this topic. Please see the article's talk page for a complete list. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as WP:ANYBIO:-

1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
- Awarded the rank of chavalier by the president of France here as "présidente d'une fondation mondiale ; 15 ans d'activités professionnelles"
2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
- présidente d'une fondation mondiale - as above citation

Moreover, I find it difficult to Assume good faith:-

This nomination is malformed, and incorrect, as it is the 4th nomination, not the third
This nomination is not listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 10
This nomination was started by an editor as their second edit, and occurred immediately after an IP had removed most of the references from the article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~DELETE~~ A withdrawn nomination must be treated as null (as though it never happened). The nomination was listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 10, see [16]. I nominated this article after locating this on internete En:WP article for Florence Devouard while searching for more sources for Wikipedia Sucks keyword.
WP:ANYBIO is not satisfied. The "appointment" (not award) of chevalier given to this person is a relatively insignificant and ordinary badge and in the lowest possible grade, ("You call these baubles, well, it is with baubles that men are led"-Napoleon). The 2nd part is also not satisfied, such a person will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. Mohsinpathania (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I struck your delete !vote, as that is implied with your nomination. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 21:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the previous nominator was unduly influenced to withdraw his nomination despite strong sentiment to delete, I have also nominated Mutant Pop Records for deletion. PS. Website owner - There is some software bug in your template "subst:afd3", kindly correct it. Mohsinpathania (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into any other aspects of notability, but I certainly don't believe that being a chevalier, the lowest level of membership, in the Ordre national du Mérite goes any way towards conferring notability on its own. That is roughly equivalent to being an MBE in the UK, but it is generally accepted that a subject needs to be at least two levels higher in the order, a CBE, before that honour is considered to be notability-granting. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the impropriety of the nomination. Cf. WP:SKCRIT point 2. I do not make such an accusation lightly, but I believe it's necessary and justified in this case. The nominator's contributions to English Wikipedia raise questions: few new users begin their editing careers by nominating multiple articles for deletion. But far more troubling is his record on Commons, where, two days before bringing this AfD, he was blocked indefinitely as an account "used exclusively for disruption" (emphasis added). Rebb ing 05:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are mistaken Sir. I was clearly blocked on Commons for requesting a deletion for monkey selfie image. My ground was that the EXIF data (Copyyright Management Information) had been stripped out in breach of USC code by a Commons bureuacrat and sysop to misrepresent that the image was authored in 2011, and not 2008 as published on NBCNEWS.COM. I am presently in active correspondence with your Websites legal counsel over this block and related issues, and certain clarifications have already been provided to me by Shri Rogers (Legal Counsel for Wikipedia). I am not at all describable as a vandal or disruptive person for pointing out breaches of Foundation Terms of Usage and US laws applicable to your esteemed website,and I am not in any edit war on your website. Mohsinpathania (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: since allegation has been leveled against me by @Rebbing, I find very curious this first edit of @Rebbing's account. PETA are of course the persons behind the monkey selfie law suit, and my accuser seems to have an undisclosed COI Mohsinpathania (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I explained above that being a chevalier, the lowest level of membership, in the Ordre national du Mérite, is not enough to confer notability, and I can't find any independent reliable sources that actually write anything substantial about Florence Devouard rather than just quote her. The claim above that the nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption is simply ridiculous, but my opinion here means that even if that was a valid claim WP:SKCRIT point 2 is no longer valid, because that point requires that "no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion as an outcome of the discussion". I am uninvolved and have now done that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG and rational provided in previous nomination and subsequent withdrawal in 2015 by @Carrite:. Hmlarson (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, and WP:BLP1E and research of UserIP-86.17.222.157. The French title itself is insignificant and trivial. The previous nomination was inconclusive and contained remarks like We extend this favour to Wikipedians with marginal notability. (Not marginally notable non-Wikipedians, though. We take care of our own) and then If we extend this courtesy to insiders, we should treat non-Wikipedians with the same level of respect. Is there now some binding policy either way that some Wikipedians are more notable than non-Wikipedians or other less insider Wikipedians ? Luridaxiom (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC) — Luridaxiom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable pageant; all other single-year entries deleted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1969[edit]

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

Annual page of a pageant deemed not notable enough for an article. Sourced only to a blog site and the pageant's own website. Legacypac (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG without substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. The article is unsourced and an independent RS search got nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (procedural as article was already deleted). —Nizolan ^(talk) 21:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kozicki coat of arms[edit]

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

Add copy at: User:Akozick/Kozicki Coat of Arms

De-PRODDED by Kvng on the basis of this AfD discussion, though no comment was made on this particular article. The article gives no context or indication of notability, and I can't find any sources non-trivially discussing a pre-19th century Alexander Kozicki, much less his coat of arms. The Polish Biographical Index does list one Aleksander Kozicki/Kosicki, but he is presumably not the subject of this article since he lived from 1802 to 1886, after the Commonwealth had been dissolved. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think I found this in userspace draft too. Will look. Legacypac (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The deletion discussion I cited is referenced on the article's talk page. ~Kvng (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a member of the long list given in that discussion, I just meant no one actually commented on this article specifically (and the consensus seemed to be to discuss each article on its own merits, rather than an affirmative keep for each one). Just meant to register it as a clerk note-type thing and courtesy ping anyway, not a complaint about your action! —Nizolan ^(talk) 16:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I was just trying (badly) to clarify that Mdann52 who closed the previous deletion discussion in applying the talk page template seemed to assert that the Keep result there applied to this article. A previous AfD result makes this article ineligible for WP:PROD, thus my WP:DEPROD. I don't have an opinion about whether this article should be kept. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the userspace version which is at MfD - basically combining discussions here. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with storm and fire: Seriously? Who can possibly imagine there's been any coverage (non-trivial or otherwise) beyond simple heraldic descriptions? Ravenswing 14:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this user's pages have now been deleted as hoaxes. Tagging this now. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuusou Mesorogiwi[edit]

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

No sources and no assertion of notability. Being the theme song of an anime alone does not make it notable enough to have its own article. It needs to have significant coverage from reliable sources. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not notable enough because it only discusses about a music video and there is not a lot of things you could add about this music video. Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any news or critical coverage of the song to establish notability for songs. The Japanese WIkipedia article also doesn't have any information that might help. Opencooper (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Lithuania. Redirect is 99% the prefferred outcome (opposed to deletion) and consensus is to redirect anyway (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Lithuania, Brussels[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable . This article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of the embassy and no inherent notability (although it has been suggested from time to time). On a side note, someone should take a sledgehammer to Category:Diplomatic missions by sending country, as most of the entries there fail the same notability criterion. No longer a penguin (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Lithuania. Smartyllama (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Lithuania. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, with a lack of reliable independent sources. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MacDonald Turkey Point Marina[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)

Non-notable business SmartSE (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. A quick search turned up this [[17]]. Confirms it is the largest fresh water marina in Canada, and for 16 years has hosted the charity fishing tournament. May be enough. Article certainly needs much improvement. MB (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @MB: That link is to a press release that is not independent of the subject and so is of no use for establishing notability. SmartSE (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Smartse: Agree with it being a press release, though from what I can tell Turkey Point doesn't have a local newspaper so there isn't much press to cite directly. Ideally, someone from the area could expand this article to explain why it is, in fact, noteworthy. neelium (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Neelium: That's not how Wikipedia works - we require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - @Smartse: Hello, I am a freelancer trying to assist the business in keeping their page from deletion. I have made some improvements to the article. I realize I have not formatted the references exactly right, but it has been so long since I've edited Wikipedia articles that I couldn't remember my old username. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. Laskiblue62 (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the page could be transformed to a port page instead of company page to comply with notability. Justinkowalsky (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I blocked the creator of this page for spamming and they appeared to be engaged in SEO. All of the three !voters so far are new editors, one has disclosed they are freelancing and I have strong reasons to believe that the other two have also been asked to come here. Please don't close this until some other editors have weighed in. Happy to provide reasons for my suspicion privately in light of WP:OUTING. SmartSE (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Norfolk County, Ontario, which will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how that broken tucsonnewsnow.com link proves anything and of course we wouldn't keep it just on the basis of hosting a charity fishing event. It either passes WP:COMPANY or it doesn't, surely. Now, this latest effort to save it by the self-declared paid PR editor by adding contact info related to it being "a Canada Border Services Agency designated marine reporting site" -- I'm no expert in marine matters but I can't find anything in the notability guidelines to cover this, and I daresay WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. The article creator User:Macdonjo has been banned. We have blatant canvassing, here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Smale, we have SPAs popping up to !vote keep -- the whole thing's rather seedy. If this were a notable topic I'd overlook it but it isn't. Or in the case of the one untainted !keep vote thus far, it only weakly is. I just don't see the value in rewarding this sort of behaviour, for a topic that is so blatantly promotional. Kudos to Smartse for his alert work on these two related Afds. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was just trying to help a small business owner out because I care about such things. I've withdrawn from their project. I was unaware that my tiny freelance fee would constitute such a tempest in a teapot. I think I now remember why I left the Wikipedia community in the first place many years ago (different username). Peace out. Laskiblue62 (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - failure of WP:CORP standards. Brianhe (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches are not finding anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maclain Nelson[edit]

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

Speedy was declined even though article is only a partial sentence that does not indicate any roles this actor played. Postcard Cathy (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The speedy was declined because the IMDB suggested notability but, the unreliability of IMDB (WP:Citing IMDb) aside, there is no indication of notability in the text. I had left this for awhile on the hope that the SPA author would return to finish the sentence.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 14:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for at least minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 17:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not notable. But, this could be a case of WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure of the best approach to this. WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP asks for good eventually souceable material but here we only had a half completed sentence. I really did think a speedy or a PROD was enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Good references not available. VanEman (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just speedy delete it already. Obviously this is not a notable actor by any means and the article is only a sentence long editorEهեইдအ😎 21:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. You are being too nice. It isn't even a complete sentence. And so far, original editor hasn't responded to my request to finish the sentence!Postcard Cathy (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Criterion 1) (non-admin closure) Rebb ing 23:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kammatipaadam[edit]

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

Unreleased film does not meet the film notability guideline's requirement of significant, independent coverage, and, per WP:NFF, "films that . . . have not yet been publicly released . . . should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Rebb ing 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination was bad, and I feel bad. I withdraw. Rebb ing 23:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a deeper look...

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

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

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

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

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

and with WP:INDAFD: Kammatti Paadam Rajeev Ravi Dulquer Salman Vinay Forrt Kammatipaadam

Keep as while searches for this by an incorrect title creates issue, filming was in progress early February, and completed filming in early March, and WP:BEFORE shows that the project's production has coverage enough to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3).[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] So... sorry Rebbing, but I believe it meets criteria and it is far better for the project that this be kept and improved through the many available sources. And the article will need to be moved to Kammatti Paadam. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done. I went through your sources and added everything I thought was plausibly useful. I also moved the page as you suggested. (I understand moving a page while it's at AfD is discouraged, but, as I nominated this article, I feel I ought to do it since it clearly needs to be done.) Assuming the International Business Times qualifies as a reliable source (it seems to be in doubt, but, for the proposition that the film has begun principal photography, I have no objection), the film clearly passes WP:NFF. However, all of the coverage you linked as well as what I found myself for the film itself—not, say, its director or its studio—is pretty routine. Rebb ing 01:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent Y and it does need more work (PS... it needs two t's. IE: Kammatti Paadam} Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moved to Kammatti Paadam. Rebb ing 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Shall we close this AFD, or do you wish for others to speak up? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        At this point, I stand by my nomination in its entirety. In my view, the coverage presented is trivial and routine and does not come close to satisfying the notability requirement, especially for an unreleased film. Most tellingly, it doesn't appear that there's enough reliable source material to write more than a paragraph or two of encyclopedic, relevant, properly-sourced -content: compare WP:WHYN's admonition that "[w]e require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Rebb ing 04:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It is unfortunate that Indian media do not usually write long and incisive articles about their films, but I believe just as you stated above "the film clearly passes WP:NFF" and also that the likelihood of there being even more toward WP:NF is pretty much assured in consideration of the notable director and cast.. it will just take looking. Toward your narrow interpretation of WP:NFF (paragraph 3), you might then offer a suitable place where the information might be merged for a few weeks, and in the meantime I'll do some work on it so others may also agree as do we both that WP:NFF is met and as a suitable stub article it can be kept and expanded over time and through regular editing. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear above. I agree that the film doesn't have a problem under WP:NFF paragraph 1 (films not confirmed to have commenced principal photography should not have articles), but that's not the same as saying the film satisfies the notability guidelines. In my view, NPP paragraph 3 (unreleased films) forecloses notability as the production itself is not notable: the production coverage of which I am aware is either not reliable or very much routine and not at all significant, and I also believe it wouldn't be notable under WP:NF and WP:GNG even as a released film. Also, notability doesn't transfer (a film isn't notable merely because its performers or directors are notable), and the future possibility of notability doesn't make a subject notable today.

As for merging, there is almost no content in this article to merge. The article can be summed up as: a certain Malayalam film was directed by a certain person, written by another, stars these people, was written at this time, and is slated to be released later this year. I would suggest mentioning the film in each participant's filmography, as appears to have been done. I believe retaining this stub, as you suggest, would be inappropriate at this time. Rebb ing 05:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were not clear. Either it passes the inclusion criteria (even if barely) of WP:NFF (paragraph 3) or it does not. So we await a consensus. If others agree it does, it can be allowed to stay as a (guideline encouraged) improvable stub (see WP:IMPERFECT)... for as as much as it would be wonderful if everything written for Wikipedia was already perfect, such wished-for perfection is not an absolute demand of guideline nor policy. Imagine how pointless this work would have been had all 682 been perfect at their outset. And to further disagree with you and since all sources speak toward the director Rajeev Ravi, I included a sourced statement therein worthy of being at most a very temporary redirect target. And if deleted, we definitely need to encourage someone to continue working on a version in a draftspace, as the current stub when WP:REFUNDED would be sent again to AFD by someone else (not you) impatient with the pace of regular editing, and/or unable or unwilling (not you) to find the many available sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my objection to this article has little to do with its current imperfection and much to do with its subject: notability isn't based on the article's sourcing, and, therefore, no amount of improvement, encouragement, or patience could make this subject notable. Rebb ing 14:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that notability is not based upon sources being used, but rather upon their being available. Abd while I only posted the first few I found to show what you missed in your own BEFORE, I feel there is enough more sourcing available to meet inclusion under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) and so to allow continued efforts. You do not. I feel the topic can be improved to serve the project. You do not. A difference of opinion is fine, but that is why I will await consensus. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Concerns about WP:BITE toward a new editor aside, I ask editors to study the original unsourced poor stub that was nominated just 23 minutes after being contributed and then look at what was done to improve the article for this completed and-soon-to-release film with only a little effort. The questions now become 1) is it a suitable stub and 2) is the project served by this now, or not? Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands, I believe this article fails the relevant notability guidelines, so I won't withdraw my nomination. I disagree with your statement that the question to resolve is whether or not the project is served by this article; notability, not usefulness, is the baseline for AfD debates, see WP:USEFUL (essay); WP:VALUABLE (essay); cf. WP:NOHARM (essay), and notability is determined by the subject, not the article's content or quality, see WP:ARTN (guideline). Perhaps you should bring a proposal to amend the notability guidelines to make editor effort and interest a valid retention criterion.

As for WP:BITE (guideline), I don't read it as discouraging nominating for deletion new editors' articles; new page patrollers routinely CSDify articles created by brand-new contributors—an arguably harsher treatment. In your digging, you should have noticed that this was the editor's fourth new article in less than an hour; all of his article creations, including the two he'd created the week before, were similarly undeveloped and unimproved, so waiting on this seemed unlikely to improve matters—especially as my concern was notability, not article content, and notability, if lacking, cannot be established by any amount of heroic editing. Rebb ing 16:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am not stalking him, but I've noticed this newcomer writing unsourced articles and, while not as impatient as others, I agree that most (but not all) were premature. Being somewhat more welcoming when I politely offered some advice on his talk page already festooned with oh-so-friendly deletion notifications. He has not edited for many days now, so I hope he has not been chased away.

And while you may certainly feel otherwise... but when so many sources are available for this completed film simply awaiting release in perhaps 3 weeks, I believe nominating a new editor's article 23 minutes after creation seems a bit hurried IMHO. Thank you for once again for repeating yourself, but you seem to have missed my asking for input from others, and decided instead to rehash your repeated refutation of inclusion guideline by using statements embellished by "essays". Time now for others please, as I feel it is a suitable WP:STUB that increases a reader's understanding of the topic being discussed. And unless policy and guideline are wrong, increasing a reader's understanding is why Wikipedia is here in the first place. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per both WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep about half of the refs Michael has provided seem to be from the International Business Times -- but I'm not aware of any reason why that's a problem. Seems to me to clearly meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pageant deemed non-notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1981[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since normally you would merge this into the pageant page but it is gone. Legacypac (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus; single-year article about non-notable pageant. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1980[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since normally you would merge this into the pageant page but it is gone. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep & Comment It is important part of History. Must be kept and improved. The whole new article for Miss Asia is required. Zedopuppy (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User Zedopuppy has been indef blocked for disruptive editing. Improvement needs references to substantial coverage by reliable sources, which do not appear to be available. A search yields the usual passing mentions, photographs and pageant blog posts. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non-notable pageant. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1982[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since normally you would merge this into the pageant page but it is gone. Legacypac (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 about one edition of pageant deleted as non notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1983[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since normally you would merge this into the pageant page but it is gone. Legacypac (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as article about one year of pageant deemed not notable. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1984[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since normally you would merge this into the pageant page but it is gone. Legacypac (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article about single episode of non-notable pageant. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1986[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since normally you would merge this into the pageant page but it is gone. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific 1988[edit]

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

Year version belonging to a pageant that was deemed not notable. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Asia Pacific International) The Banner talk 11:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since normally you would merge this into the pageant page but it is gone. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam[edit]

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

Article about a film. Fails WP:GNG for lack of available sources. - Mr X 12:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Nee Vaa Sruthi Polam Saravana Arun Ram Shweta Suvedha UGG Creations

Delete as WP:NF is failed. This 8 minute YouTube short film lacks coverage in reliable sources. If "UGG Creations" first short film ever gains coverage, a WP:REFUND is a consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no convincing notability at all. SwisterTwister talk 04:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. If this film's only claim to fame is 10k watches on youtube, obvious delete. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteList of rationale why it is not notable enough:

The source (which is the youtube video) is not watched by enough people.Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 14:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Phua[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Almost no sources exist to show notability. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Completely fails to assert WP:BIO. scope_creep 12:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete being quoted in the media is not the same as being the subject of coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that as the club is not in a fully-professional league, the season article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Orange County Blue Star season[edit]

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

devoid of content Rathfelder (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst I agree with ThePlatypusofDoom that a lack of content isn't enough of a reason to delete (except in cases where there's literally nothing; at least this has a brief intro), the subject does fail WP:NSEASONS and general consensus from past AfDs is that season articles should only be allowed for clubs playing in fully-professional leagues (which the PDL isn't). See this recent example. Number 5 7 08:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per N57, non-notable. Giant Snowman 20:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Jollee[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. "Superslut of the Year" is not a significant award, and if Wikipedia were a sensible place it would be seen as a BLP violation. Tendentiously deprodded by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk

~~No one's arguing that she passes GNG, but~~ how does she fail PORNBIO? She has two non-scene/ensemble wins, which is more than enough to satisfy the guideline. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

I never said anyone was did I ?, Because they're not notable awards and winning an award for "Superslut of the year" is as cheap as it gets, She has a lovely profile over at Pornhub (which I just found out can't be linked thanks to the blacklist!) so it's not as if we're disadvantaging anyone by deleting this poorly referenced article. –Davey2010^Talk 02:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't "cheap". The porn industry's most prestigious award is AVN's Female Performer of the Year and there is a very strong correlation between that award and XRCO's Superslut. 10 out of 11 Superslut winners have been nominated for/won Female Performer of the Year. Jollee was nominated for AVN's Female Performer of the Year award in 2005 and 2006, the same years in which she won XRCO's Superslut. AVN nominates 15 people every year for Female Performer of the Year while XRCO narrows AVN's list down to the strongest contenders for their own Female Performer of the Year award. Jollee was such a strong contender for Female Performer of the Year in 2005, that she made it onto XRCO's elite Female Performer of the Year nominees list of only 5 people. Now, I personally think that an AVN Female Performer of the Year nomination should be enough to pass PORNBIO. It is quite a reasonable request. I can assure you all I'd never ask for any other nomination into PORNBIO, not even Female Performer of the Year from XBIZ/XRCO/etc. or Best New Starlet, but the fact there's over 30 AVN Female Performer of the Year nominees without WP articles is preposterous. Despite being a reasonable addition to PORNBIO, it would probably not happen, but at the very least can we keep the current PORNBIO guideline? PORNBIO notability is already far enough from real-world notability, stop trying to take it even further from that by expanding its exclusions. PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.") is clearly met by XRCO's Superslut award. No good argument has been given against it so far in this AfD besides "I don't like the category because it has a funny name". You're all reacting to the Superslut category as if it were an award for "Best Amputee Porn Star", "Best Midget Porn Star", or some other obscure genre where it's nearly impossible for performers in it to become notable because of its unpopularity. Evil Angel produces pornography so extreme, that it has led to obscenity charges, and it is among the porn industry's top companies, which demonstrates that extreme sex acts are part of mainstream pornography. Some porn stars who perform extreme sex acts become notable for doing so, so it makes sense for porn award shows to recognize them. Out of the 13 years the award has been give out, only two recipients of it have won it twice, and Jollee is one of them. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Little reliable sourcing or coverage; significant coverage is only by one source. Esquivalience ^t 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~No one's arguing that she passes GNG, but~~ she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it pass a) significant and b) well-known? Sure, the article on the award itself prominently says in passive voice (quite against UNDUE) that it has been deemed the Academy Award for X-rated media, but the organization that issues the awards is not the AMPAS or SAG-AFTRA for pornography, and I only find moderate coverage of the award itself (past the level of notability, but not "significant or well-known"). Esquivalience ^t 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, XRCO is a well-known/significant award. WP:PORNBIO itself explicitly states that an XRCO Hall of Fame induction is enough to keep an article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"). PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories. Superslut is not scene-related/ensemble. You can mock the category's name all you want, but that isn't a reasonable argument to exclude it from PORNBIO. Porn performers are known for many different things. The willingness of some to perform extreme sex acts is one of them. Performing extreme sex acts in PORN films is a perfectly legitimate reason to give someone a PORN award. That's the whole purpose of porn award shows, to reward outstanding porn performances. And how is this a "BLP violation". If Jollee had any qualms about being called a "superslut" she wouldn't have performed extreme sex acts on film for all to see, won XRCO's Superslut award TWICE, and proudly pose for photos with her trophy. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, please stop misrepresenting the terms of PORNBIO. PORNBIO does not say that only scene-related awards are deemed to fail PORNBIO, and that all other awards qualify. Other awards (relating to niche categories, body parts, for example) have been found by consensus to fail the well-known/significant standard. You may not like the consensus, but denying it exists is tendentious and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misrepresenting PORNBIO. Consensus in AfDs has repeatedly shown that all non-scene/ensemble categories from well-known/significant ceremonies meet PORNBIO. You've keep claiming that niche and body part categories have consensus to exclude from PORNBIO, but have never provided evidence of it. In fact if it were true, it would say so in PORNBIO. It's preposterous that you would even suggest we exclude niche and body part categories. There is no logical reason to do so. The niche awards go hand-in-hand with PORNBIO#2 ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre") and since one of the things porn stars are best known for is their body parts, it makes sense to have body part awards. Don't get me wrong, I do think Best Actress awards are evidence of notability and think they should continue to be accepted by PORNBIO, but I consider body part awards to be even bigger evidence of notability than Best Actress. There are simply more people viewing pornography for the boobs and butts than they are for the acting/plots. Porn stars known for having large breasts or a big butt are better known for having that than the ones known for their acting skills are known for their acting skills. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all your huffing and puffing about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you keep evading the point that PORNBIO quite plainly does not say that only scene-related award categories fail the well-known and significant standard. As Morbidthoughts told you on the PORNBIO talkpage, "The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.[7] The AFDs and DRVs have made clear that the MILF of the Year nominations are not significant enough not that PORNBIO is flawed. Given that in this very AFD you are also arguing that "she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept" -- which contradicts the express language in WP:Notability (people), of which PORNBIO is a component that "meeting one or more [of the components] does not guarantee that a subject should be included", it's clear that the position you argue regarding notability is contradicted by longstanding consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is from a discussion on what to exclude from PORNBIO and the consensus of it was to only exclude nominations, not any type of award category. Consensus is the outcome of a discussion, not a user's opinion in it. Not only that, you're also providing a quote on a completely different award that is irrelevant in this AfD. The quote also happens to be from a user who has voted to keep this article below, so you are totally misinterpreting it to refer to Jollee's awards when it clearly doesn't. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the requirement of WP:GNG of having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not having substantial coverage in mainstream media, the award is not in a major category but one of the endless spurious categories that seem to exist only for publicity purposes and inventing some sort of fake notability for projects such as wikipedia. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XRCO's Superslut category does not "exist only for publicity purposes". If that were the case, its recipients would only be performers with publicists. It is very unlikely for Jollee to have had a publicist during her career, otherwise an AVN search for "Ariana Jollee" under "Company News" (aka "Press Release") would yield results for PR about her. There is only one result for Jollee in the search, and it's by a company promoting a film she happens to be in the cast of, not by a publicist promoting her. That PR was also released many years after she won the awards, so her wins were in no way influenced by any publicity at all. The entire XRCO Awards aren't influenced by publicity. If they were, performers like Aurora Snow, who has stated on numerous occasions (interviews, Daily Beast articles, college speeches, etc.) that she initially entered the adult film industry only to pay for school and planned to have a short-term/low-profile career she would forget about after quitting, wouldn't have won so many XRCO Awards early in her career. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOREASON, vote null. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De;ete Superslut? Really? Fials PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Superslut? Really?" is a perfect example of what I was referring to when I said "mock the category's name all you want, but that isn't a reasonable argument to exclude it from PORNBIO" above. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe she passes PORNBIO not just because of her awards but because of criteria 2 for having made unique contributions to a genre. Her 65 guy creampie scene is notorious, having been written about by Robert Jensen. He devotes 12 pages to analyzing her and this scene.[28] Another author devotes 4 pages to this.[29][30]. Along with the AVN citations in the article, she passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails the guidelines for notability of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline for pornographic actors is "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." XRCO is a well-known and significant industry award and Superslut is not a scene-related or ensemble category. PORNBIO only requires one win and Jollee has two. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While one might find the name of the awards she won distasteful (and I somewhat agree), it is an individual body of work award and has been given out for long enough to be considered well-known. She has received a fair amount of coverage in and out of porn that she would pass the GNG as well in my opinion. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article's history shows there are at least two other users on WP who believe Jollee passes our notability guidelines based on her awards (Cavarrone & Subtropical-man). Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, that sure looks like an attempt to commit a WP:CANVASS violation, since editors "must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". And there are quite a few editors who have no sympathy for your position, but I don't go around trying to call their attention to deletion discussions or cast pseudo!votes in their name. Even for porn promoters, this is a new level of shenanigans. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 editor who I admit raises concerns, the other being nonsensical and invalid ..... Nice try tho!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing means NOTIFYING users of a discussion, which I did not do. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meet of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG which states that for an article to exist, the subject must've had coverage from independant reliable sources. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the discussion? Because then you should precisely explain why there are absolutely NO independant sources in your opinion although two books dealing with a rather "exceptional" not common scene were stated above. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I previously closed this as "delete", but after discussion on my talk page I have come to the view that if one counts only the "delete" and "keep" opinions that actually discuss the sources rather than merely assert notability or non-notability, we have near parity. Previous contributors are invited to discuss why precisely the notability guidelines are or aren't met. Sandstein 09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability requirements. VanEman (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having performed in an extraordinary Film with 65 partners – which is even for the unholy porn industry not everyday-stuff – sounds like a clear unique feature/unique selling point (or how one would call that in English) which has been covered and examined in two serious books. I can't imagine and don't want to watch such a film but calling that a unique contribution would in my opinion be the only possibility. Also her serious, personal XRCO Awards are of course no fun-awards just because of their namings. Neither are they promotional as they are giving out the only independent porn critics' awards in the US. XRCO is using some figurative, let's call it, "poetic" namings for their categories like "Unsung Swordsman", "New Stud", "Orgasmic Oralist" or "Superslut". And when reading a bit into the above book sources (that moreover state her to be one of the first well known gonzo performers) one will understand why she has been awarded as Superslut: because it's perfectely hitting the truth. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PORNBIO. Her two Superslut of the Year awards—while apparently drawing the ire of some—meet PORNBIO point 1. 65 Guy Creampie was an "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster" film and, in my opinion, foreshadowed works like American Gokkun 8 (JM Productions 2008); her performance in Cremapie likely meets PORNBIO point 2. As WP:BIO instructs: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any" (emphasis added) of the specific guideline points. Rebb ing 01:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:PORNBIO through awards notable and significant to and through coverage by her industry, even if in non-genre media. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has devolved into a bad joke. It's bizarre that proponents of keeping the article have cited as sufficient coverage an academic source (Jensen) which actually concludes "What conclusions should we draw about Ariana Jollee? From this limited information, it would be folly to claim to know anything" and goes on to state "If someone were to ask me 'Who is Ariana Jollie?' I would be hard pressed to offer much of an answer". In other words, the most substantive, reliable source to be found declares that reliably sourced information about this person cannot be found. That should be taken as a strong, and unrefuted, case that the subject fails the GNG. The only efforts the keep !voters make (with one exception) is simply handwaving and pointing to cites which, on examination, don't offer significant coverage. What theae sources boil down to is little more than the unuseful assertion that Ariana Jollee, like most of the women presented in "gang bang" pornography, is reduced to a cipher, and the statement that Jollee is a cipher is not a sufficient basis for an article. Similarly, the keep proponents assert, without anything resembling reliable sourcing, that all ofthe industry marketing claims about Jollee's single performance of supposed importance is factually accurate. This defies the simple and well-established fact that porn marketing is dominated by what the wrestling industry refers to as "Kayfabe", in-universe fiction that is presented as fact. Such kayfabe surrounding "gang bang" pornography is notoriously fictive; for example, one Jasmin St. Claire, formerly promoted as a "gang bang" record holder, now admits that her "extraordinary" performance was "among the biggest cons ever pulled off in the porn business". And there is exactly zero evidence that the "Superslut" meets the well-known/significant standard of PORNBIO (indeed, unusually for porn awards, it has virtually no GBooks hits (aside from compilations of Wikipedia articles, which don't count toward notability or significance); instead, the keep proponents generally make insinuations about the motives of delete !voters rather than address genuine policy- or guideline- based claims. Not even the award-giving organization provides and explanation of the eligibility requirements for or the criteria by which the "award" recipient is selected, a strong, strong signal of its insignificance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this discussion has devolved into a bad joke because these page is trolling by total delectionist user. WP:GNG is not a requirement and compulsory, this is one of the notability guidelines. Articles in Wikipedia not must meet of the GNG, however, if article meet this is automatical argument for keep. WP:GNG say: "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". Simply. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the proper word is not bizarre, HW, but ironic. You're distorting the words of an anti-pornography critic to make the argument that Jollee is not notable despite the fact that he devotes 12 pages to her. He's asking what could a viewer really know about Jollee the person rather than the performer which fits into the popular feminist argument that pornography objectifies and debases women. His actual rhetorical conclusion that you omitted, was "So, maybe the important question isn’t “Who is Ariana Jollee?” Maybe the right question is “Who is Laura David?".[31] However, let me quote some other words from him about the performer.
"By this logic, the women in pornography—especially the really nasty ones—are the ultimate women. By that standard, Ariana Jollee may well be the perfect woman in a world defined by pornography, someone whose public persona and work on the screen embody the concept of nasty."

"This nastiest of the filthy women in pornography, this woman about to turn 22 years old, turns to a man who makes his living in the pornography industry and asks for his approval, asking if her sex with 65 men was a “good gangbang.”

Hey look at that. Acknowledgment that she is notable in her field. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What bullshit. Note that the section you quote begins with "By this logic", and the "logic" referred to is the standard porn marketing trope that women really want to be whores. That's not a perspective Wikipedia articles are written from, even if the Howard Stern show is. Jensen devotes 12 pages not to Jollee herself, but to how the woman featured in a piece of gang bang pornography that is fairly typical (despite its elaborate apparatus) is rendered a cipher by the industry's standard practices. The factual content regarding Jollee herself in that piece is limited to the writer's lack of information about her. Claiming that that's sufficient to support a BLP makes about as much sense as writing a BLP of John Malkovich based entirely on reviews of Being John Malkovich. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really, that's what comes down to it. Is this article really about the performer/character or the person that is behind that. That the character may be fictional does not make her less notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent sources.--TM 22:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mhhossein (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Houzan Mahmoud[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet WP:NOTCSD. This article doesn't have enough sources to prove that the person is notable. Also, there is no enough information about the person Ferakp (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this much: WP:NOTCSD doesn't mean what you think it does and "there is no enough information about the person" is an absurd rationale, in this case. "Doesn't have enough sources to prove that the person is notable" doesn't say that they don't exist, and indeed, the news links do reveal more sources available -- whether they are in-depth enough is another issue. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that this appears to be related to the editor's POV warring at Talk:Kurdish_women#Blackwashing_articles. The concern as far as I can tell appears to be the no article can exist which in the nominator's view "blackwashes" Kurds and he seems especially sensitive to removing any reference that there has ever been such a thing as honour killing of women by Kurds. That's my interpretation of it anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable, and has coverage from reliable sources. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Shawn, he has not been following NPOV. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage from reliable sources. Keep it with a 'needs help' banner. VanEman (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By simple googling I can find quite a few references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Omar Dubad[edit]

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

Somali politician and diplomat, previously deprodded by DGG (talk · contribs). This article is unverifiable, failing WP:V. The one cited source is a dead link. Google finds something on a blog ([32]) that reads like an obituary written by his family, but that's not a reliable source. Moreover, his notability is not clear. He was supposedly a member of parliament, which would make him notable, but even if that could be verified, Somalia is an anarchic, failed state fought over by many groups and regimes, and so it's not clear whether he was member of a parliament in any meaningful sense rather than just a pro forma member of some administration in exile. Add to that the generally promotional / obituary-like tone of the article, and I think it's clear that we should delete it until some good sources become available. Sandstein 09:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Being an MP is always notable, and it is absurd to say that a national chargé d'affaires in the UN is unverifiable. The chaotic politics of Somalia is irrelevant. WP covers the world as it is. This should not be deleted with a check for sources in the country's own language, however difficult this may be to accomplish. And in fact, it is extremely easy, even in English: a search in Google under the individuals name gives a live version of the dead link in the article at [33]. Total time spent: less than a minute. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And another minute brings the expected additional source: an official UN yearbook at [34]. Sandstein, please look at this again. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so what we can verify is that he was chargé d'affaires for Somalia. That isn't enough for notability and not enough to support an article. The awdalpress.com text can't be taken seriously as a reliable source, as it appears self-published: the site's "About" page reads, in its entirety: "The most trusted Somali News and analyze [sic] web site". Sandstein 19:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Being an MP is absolutely unquestionably notable, regardless of whether you are in the Global South or not. Very disappointing that an experienced editor would provide such a poor rationale as suggesting a Member of Parliament from Somalia is not notable (in spite of the very clear policy at WP:NPOL) because it is an "anarchic, failed state" AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you verify that he was an MP? Of which parliament? Sandstein 19:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is an important and legitimate point. The rationale appears brash to me though. If his status as an MP could be verified, would you still argue he was non-notable? You suggested you would. However, searches need to be conducted in Somali and Arabic. AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: As I wrote in the nomination, if he was a member of parliament, he's notable. That's not an issue. The issue is verifiability: We have one reliable source, cited above, stating that he existed and was a diplomat. There's nothing else we can say with certainty about him. We can't for instance verify that he was a MP, and that the body he might have been a member of was in fact a parliament in any meaningful sense. If he was, for instance, member of a parliament-in-exile, which may or may not have been elected by anybody, then his notability would be much more questionable. And the people who would need to make any necessary searches are those who want to keep the article, per WP:BURDEN. Sandstein 07:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the TFG is the internationally recognized gov't of Somalia, and status as TFG diplomat easily verifiable; "Yusuf Omar Al Azhari, the replacement of Mohamed Omar Dubad in the post of TFG Ambassador to Geneva is also a Mejerteen.". --Soman (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which legislature? Verified how? Sandstein 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Dion. czar 14:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dion (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable character from the Transformers universe. A number of primary sources are cited, but I'm seeing no real-world notability. The article is mostly made up of in-universe information. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters#Other characters and Beings. I had to restrict my searches to get rid of the mountains of unrelated results, so I might have missed something useful. However, I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. There were a few novels listed on Google Books, but that's about it besides the usual fan sites and such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sources which are independent of the subject, and so this should be deleted. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

City Commander[edit]

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

Non-notable character from the Transformers universe. Well, no, not quite- it's "a third party Transformer", but "[a]n unlicensed reproduction of the toy has been released". Fancruft. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , calling it "fancruft" is not an argument. It has numerous legitimate sources and is notable in it's field.Mathewignash (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mathewignash (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

- "Fancruft" is an accurate description of this. It is of interest to a small number of Transformers enthusiasts. If that's all you mean by it being notable in "it's" field, then I agree. The article currently cites a number of Transformers fansites, DeviantArt, some toy shops and some forums. As soon as you show me these "numerous legitimate sources", I'll withdraw the nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources listed in the article are fan sites, wikis, and Internet forums. I don't see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There's this trivial mention, I guess, but that's not enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge to a list, if desired) yes, I can't find any real WP:RS to indicate it would be notable, either as a fictional character or a toy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3). Max Semenik (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erina language[edit]

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

The language didn't exist - I didn't find anything in search about it, as well as links in article are all dead Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- this is old languageKratie222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the reasons given in the nomination, my suspicion that this is a hoax is reinforced by the determined way that the two creators delete talk page posts of other editors and remove CSD and AFD tags with misleading edit summaries. —teb728 t c 10:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article links to non-existent ISO and glottolog codes. Most of the plausibly-looking content of the article (together with the now broken refs to works by Degener and Rajapurohit, which don't mention Erina at all) appears to have been lifted from Shina language. Add to it the wacky claims about the language's antiquity or membership of the Slavonic group and it's clear that the article as it stands now is a hoax. However, glottolog does list the similarly looking Arniya as an alternative name of the Khowar language; this might indicate it's a regional variant, so I'd imagine there might exist sources about that, for whoever wants to start a proper article about it in the future. Uanfala (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is an another article with different name (Erina var) also exists. GSS (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a redirect to this one. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment it's a duplicate. I've nominated it for deletion. Uanfala (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: Please check this redirect page as well Erina var language. Thank You – GSS (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - this is language in pakistan Daud khan 2 (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You're allowed only one vote. Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strongly keep this language has no connection with language like arniya or khowar it is different so this article must not be deleteDaud khan 2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a different language, we need sources stating that. It doesn't even need for the sources to say it's a separate language, as long as they provide enough detail about it and they make it clear that it is a distinct regional or social variety. Uanfala (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is an article, Shina, which is also a language in Baltistan which sound similar. However, the Library of Congress didn't list the language code, at [[35]], nor did the language code turn up at the much more extensive github raw list, which encompasses even dead languages, here: [[36]]. Non of the language codes show up. Google books has no mention of the language, for languages spoken in Baltistan, although it's list of books it's copied and stolen is minute. scope_creep 12:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd caution against using, in future discussions like this, either the ISO 639-2 codes (from the LoC link) or the ISO 639-3 ones (from your github link) as they don't aim at being extensive (not all varieties are covered) and they are maintained by Ethnologue, which has been notoriously slow in catching up with current research. The only database that I know of that aims to be extensive is Glottolog and it's already linked from the language infoboxes. But other than that, I'd agree: the ISO codes provided in this article are clearly made up. Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as nominated: as hoax. Fylbecatulous talk 15:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the linked sources appear to be either broken or irrelevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please redirect to Burushaski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.67.78 (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced/hoax. This has significant similarities to the Arina language article that was salted last year after being repeatedly recreated by socks. I'll raise an SPI against the involved editors. --McGeddon (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. The consonant and vowel tables and the diphthong lists were clearly lifted from Shina. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Erina Language doesn't exist and most of the content was pulled from the Shina Language article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.38.67.78 (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Post-close Comment: I know this page says that I'm not supposed to edit it, but for anyone tracking down further variations of this mess, the content in the deleted article above was added in a different form to Erina, which is a redirect. The content was added by Daud khan 2, a participant in the above discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This mess seems to be recreated now and again by one or another of Najaf ali bhayo's socks. Good to keep an eye at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Najaf ali bhayo/Archive. Uanfala (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn as we know that DarthBotto has shown willingness to take up with the article. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alien characters[edit]

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

Article is redundant. It has been in existence for 10 years, has 2 references after being tagged for 8 years and suffering from in-universe problems tagged 6 years ago. It offers no information that is not or could not be covered in the relevant articles. If necessary the cast list table can be merged into the central Alien series article, but the rest of the article is in-universe plot and all of it is unsourced. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I only recently came across this article and have thus far worked to include missing content. This article has significant notability and context, as it serves as a character list for a prominent franchise. It definitely deserves to stay, but I agree that it requires significant cleanup and referencing, which I will be taking up. So, I say we should dismiss this AfD and I'll look to improve the quality of the article and add the references, which most certainly can be found like the boat load, so it's not just pure in-universe jargon, as Darkwarriorblake's implying. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone of note from this series has their own article, like Ripley and the Alien. Everyone else is relevant to their own film article, existing is not an excuse for a list. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Existing isn't an excuse, but the fact remains that we're dealing with one of the most prominent science fiction franchises of all time, which does warrant companion articles, such as one detailing characters. Either you can agree with this perspective, or you could apply your reasoning across the wiki and nominate for deletion List of Jurassic Park characters, as well as every article in this category. With the state of things, there simply is not just enough cause to delete this specific article. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Because I'm not aware of those articles and have not the time to nominate them, isn't an argument for "why bother getting rid of one". And as I said, there are already companion articles, for the alien and its varians, and significant characters like Ripley and Bishop. The rest of the character entries are regurgitating plot, there's no value you can add to them that isn't already present in the relevant film articles, so then you're just repeating information. Your additions to the article alone in just the last few weeks are huge amounts of just repeating plot, such as Shaw's section, so why would there be any indication that you will elevate this article beyond what it is right now? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed in your hostile tone, Darkwarriorblake; there have been numerous times in the past that we've constructively worked together and that I actually defended you against users who criticized and called for blocks on you. To answer your question, I first needed to incorporate the materials from the Prometheus article, which was a sizable undertaking. I was about to start referencing this article and clean up the redundancies when I saw you nominated it for deletion. As I stated earlier, this is a very prominent franchise with plenty of resources available out there, which you have not yet addressed in the defense of your AfD. If you read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, there really isn't any applicable reason for this article to be deleted. Your basis is that there aren't reliable resources out there? Simply because I haven't conducted a cleanup of the article does not mean that, as the priority is to prevent it from being needlessly deleted. You can do a simple Google search for most any element in the article and you'll see results. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is not lack of sources, it's that I don't see what this article does or can do, that the main character and film articles do not already do. And there was no tone implied, so i apologise. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's all good about you and I, man. I added a courtesy break beneath for a new angle I have. Let me know what you think, please! ;) DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Per DarthBotto and the list just needs some improvements. Alien: Covenant ‎ is filming now, which will also feature some new Alien characters and we have to put those all characters somewhere together. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 02:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have to put all these characters somewhere together? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-consider the word "we". If you don't wish to be part of it, then relax and let others do it --which they've done-- and don't interfere. --AVM (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-consider your tone. It's disgusting and immature. And they haven't "done" it, that's the point. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This article serves as a guide to those fictional species depicted in this very significant franchise. The fact that some issues haven't been taken care of is no reason for deletion; whoever proposed such harsh measure ought to help by taking care of those issues, instead of plotting against the article. For sure, it took the effort of several editors to build, and definitely has a certain degree of merit and usefulness, while there are hundreds of other articles out here in Wikipedia that have either lesser or almost none, thus, I disagree about it being 'redundant'. --AVM (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy break - After examining this list and examining the character list on Wikipedia:Featured lists, I definitely can agree that this article needs some serious refocusing. So far, its emphasis is upon the plot elements, when it should have a great deal of focus upon the writing and design of the individual characters, one-by-one. Therefore, I believe we should essentially rewrite each and every character section to include the necessary elements for character lists. Should this page be deleted? Absolutely not; its subject matter is very notable, prominent and can be sourced, which, to Darkwarriorblake's credit, I should have taken care of when I started editing in the Prometheus section recently. But regardless, the subject matter remains out of the bounds of deletion, though emphasis should be drawn far beyond the plot. What do you guys think? DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 21:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to get this done (remember, this page has been tagged for 6 years in some cases), then I am happy to withdraw the deletion request. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely be willing to take this up as my main focus for Wikipedia until it's up to par. You know, I only watched the movies in the Alien franchise two years ago and started editing related articles last fall. I've been systematically approaching the articles and retrofitting them to be more in-line with the franchise, as they have generally been a discombobulating mess, mixing together with Predator and AvP, then treating Prometheus like a separate entity... Ugh. I came across this page like, oh, I don't know, a month or so ago? It's a hefty task, but I think it's a page with necessary subject matter, so it deserves better than the shitty state it's in. Six years? Too long, indeed. Let's make this article chime. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tena Palmer[edit]

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

PROD removed because of one source added but it's not actually detailed and, not simply that, but I still questionable the article overall. I still confirm my PROD here. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not able to find sources (other than articles having only a trivial mention of the subject). Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As non-notable. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, and my sweeps of Canadian news only found a few listings, not in-depth coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with SwisterTwister, can't find any good references. VanEman (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Accompany[edit]

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

PROD removed with the explanation of three links being added to the talk page but I'm simply not thoroughly convinced by that and my searches simply found a few links at Books. I still confirm my PROD here. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing more than a few passing mentions in GBooks, confirming that they are an audio equipment company, but that is all. Nothing on GNews. Even a Dutch news archive search resulted in 54 (self-published) adverts and only 3 passing mentions in real articles. - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor references available. VanEman (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pam Seatle[edit]

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

PROD removed because of the first nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Burrill where it was included) which is clearly not applicable to today's Wikipedia and I still confirm my original PROD [37] here]. I can certainly imagine that the only still active AfDer DGG would've changed his perspective of these articles so I'm certainly welcoming his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't changed my perspective in the least: In 2007 I said Keep all I'd support a speedy/SNOW close, so they can be listed properly. I thought then and think now that even for articles as minimal as this was at the time [38], it is always possible that for one of more of the mass nomination there will be additional information available. And, looking at the present article, even if had had been deleted in 2007 on the basis of the proper nomination that should have followed up on the mass AfD, it would still need a new AfD because everything listed in the present article is after that date. I haven't checked yet, however.(And I also note that almost all the other articles from that AfD need further checking: in most cases, nothing substantial seems to be have been added). DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has wrote many news articles, but is not the subject of any reliable sources that I can find. If anyone can find sources, then I'd be glad to reconsider and help expand the article. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing rules are much stricter now than they were at the time of the first discussion. At the time, an AFD on a television or radio journalist could easily be swayed keepward as long as the journalist in question had a staff profile on the website of the media outlet they worked for — but we're now much stricter about what constitutes a valid notability claim for a journalist in the first place, and what counts as valid sourcing to support it, than we were in 2007. And even at the time, the discussion hinged not at all on any evidence of her (or anyone else's) actual notability — it landed entirely on the fact that it was a sloppy bundling of topics who weren't all equivalent and needed to be considered as individuals. But separate renominations mostly never happened, so her actual suitability as an article topic was never actually assessed at all. Under the rules that pertain now, nothing written or sourced here cuts it in the slightest, and all I can find for other sourcing in ProQuest is glancing namechecks of her existence rather than substantive coverage about her. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seatle is a run of the mill local news reporter. Nothing to distinguish her from many other such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Boxing at the 2015 European Games (non-admin closure). clpo13_(talk) 15:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 64 kg[edit]

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

No additional content that can be found on the main page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Content could be expanded one day, like some of the other events. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results which I think is proper. Wikipedia is not supposed to be result listing so although a case can be made for higher level competitions I don't think the European Games for Boxing is. It looks like all these sub-articles were created with the intention of expansion which never happened. I see that there were several other AfDs which should have been grouped and several sub-articles that were expanded that were not sent to AfD - I think the latter should be sent to AfD eventually but I want to see how these play out first.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the previous European Games have an expansion for boxing results" - that's because there are none, as this is the first European Games! other results have been completed, these ones haven't. For now. There's also lots of incoming links to these individual tournaments for nations/competitors and they all have the possibility of being expanded. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken (I was confused by the European Boxing Championships). I still stand by my comment that competition trees for every weight class for every competition is not necessary. For what I think is a comparable example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Asian Wrestling Championships – Men's freestyle 57 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, otherwise redirect: I agree with Lugnuts. Notable event. Many secondary sources (see here. Most of the elite events at the European Games have these sub pages, see Category:Sports at the 2015 European Games. Also many incoming links. Only if someone can show that a page of a red link is earlier created than when it is a redirect, deleting could make sense. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that most of this series was closed already as Redirect - I think the closing admin missed two. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 60 kg.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And has now been relisted! So we'll have another 7 days of nothing, meaning that one month since the listing started, no-one applied common-sense and was just bold enough to redirect it in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One can return to the deletion discussion in a couple of years, trying to add sources in the meanwhile.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Ryder[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Page also reads like a puff piece. Meatsgains (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Needs to be edited to be more encyclopaedic, certainly, but subject is certainly notable within her field. —Sam Wilson 10:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources neither establish notability against as per the deletion nom, nor are are reliable. I could not find alternate sources to establish notability. Aeonx (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I have added more info on Angela. She is a notable woman in the Noongar community of Western Australia and was inducted into the WA Women's Hall of Fame in 2011 in the first 100 most notable women of Western Australia — Mary10:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Blight NYS, which part of WP:BIO or WP:GNG do you think it meets? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Boleyn,Angela has received several well-known and significant award or honors has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. She has contributed greatly to the Noongar Community of Western Australia and continues to do so.Mary Blight NYS (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is still questionable at best, delete until better solid details and sources are available. SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously needs some work, but the person is definitely notable. We need articles like this to make sure we are not reinforcing Wikipedia's systemic bias.VanEman (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

VanEman, how is it clearly notable? How does it meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm seeing nice source coverage at Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment (has already voted) ~~Keep~~, I agree with Cirt. I was easily able to find more reliable references that are not included in the article at the moment. Our guidelines don't say that the article already has to be completely referenced, but rather that the references be available. They are. VanEman (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- VanEman, voting twice is very misleading, I've struck out the keep vote but left yout comments. Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concensus is that the company does not meet the criteria for inclusion, and the platform (which is one of their products) likewise fails to meet this. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Haulmont[edit]

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

Non-notable company not referenced at length in independent, third party sources, so it fails the general notability guideline. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a product made by the company which similarly fails the WP:GNG---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC):[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 06:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Haulmont article fails the WP:GNG, then why CUBA Platform page should be deleted? It has over 3000 registrations over the past year and community is growing rapidly. I don't think that it is a wise decision to delete it just because company developer seems to break GNG. Also CUBA Platform has recently changed its licensing and became free for all. I do think that Wikipedia should support this kind of products. Taking in consideration all above we ask you to reconsider this request for deletion. Aleksey.stukalov (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC) copied from the talk page clpo13_(talk) 21:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC) — Aleksey.stukalov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note that Aleksey.stukalov identifies as a technology evangelist for CUBA, and has an obvious COI. Guy (Help!) 14:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I don't hide my position (it even appears on my user's wiki page) and don't see any problem sharing my own opinion and facts that I can prove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksey.stukalov (talk • contribs) 14:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Haulmont is a finalist of European IT and Software Excellence Awards in nomination of Vertical Market Solution of the Year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksey.stukalov (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any independent, reliable sources that discuss the company/product at length? Just being a finalist in one competition without any further elaboration hardly counts as significant coverage and isn't enough to build a Wikipedia article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CUBA Platform is a fairly new but it's definitly growing fast. It has quite large community, that can be proved by my blog traffic (road-to-cuba-and-beyond.com). Additionally i post a lot of blog posts on sites like DZone or JAXenter and all of them seem to think that the platform is "relevant" enough. One article on DZone even got 100k pages views. The framework has been recently open sourced and due to this it will increase in relevance and popularity. CUBA as well as Haulmont have become known (generally notable) in the world of java enterprise applications development for the past year. From that perspective I'm against the deletion of the articles. Additionally i was just trying to translate the CUBA Platform article to the german wikipedia and i'm not really sure why this should be deleted at all.mariomddavid (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — mariomddavid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I do not believe that this page should be deleted. In fact, the CUBA platform is a rapidly growing enterprise platform in the JAVA world with a growing presence in the Americas. This page will be very useful as an introduction to enterprise software and for evaluation purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisnzeutem (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC) — Francisnzeutem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as obvious promotion. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete as promotion and failing WP:NOTABILITY. This may be rescue-able if some clueful Wikipedia wanted to take this on, but I don't think so. The !votes to keep so far are not based on Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY criteria; those folks seem to really like this software but that is not relevant here. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obvious winners of the European IT and Software Excellence Awards.62.69.22.17 (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— 62.69.22.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In addition to being a single purpose account, the IP editor above is based in the Russian headquarters of Haulmont. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 11:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dawn and Drew Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable podcast. NPR is a listing, and who knows what's mentioned in Time. Google reveals no RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failure to meet WP:WEB. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I rescind my previous statement per the arguments of Dontreader and Shawn in Montreal: I believe they have conclusively established the notability of the subject. --Erick Shepherd (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close: This has been a Strong Keep twice now, with only one delete !vote in the previous two AfDs. I see no reason for a third AfD. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's been enough time to allow another AfD and this is common at AfD, but I will also have to say Delete for this as this would need better improvements and my searches haven't found anything convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In all fairness to Walter Görlitz A) The previous AFDs wasn't made by WG, and B) The first and second AFDs were in 2005 and 2007 respectively and since then AFD here has become alot more stricter etc so those shouldn't be taken so seriously as such, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below - Sources aren't amazing but notability's certainly there.... –Davey2010^Talk 14:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps it does meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The depth of coverage is not impressive, from what I can see, but I was impressed by the Columbia Journalism Review calling it one of the "more established podcasts", being cited by the NYT arts critic Virginia Heffernan so prominently, with the BBC citing the show as a key example on the business side of podcasting, etc. Again, not in-depth but widely cited. Keep, for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 05:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs serious improvements, such as the lead section, and a decent references section, but despite what the nominator claims, Google does reveal reliable sources, which he or she missed. For example, Advertising Age has a lengthy article dedicated entirely to the show here. Also, a book entitled Podcasting Bible, whose authors seem to be independent of the show, covers the topic significantly on more than one page (scroll from here). There's even a For Dummies book whose foreword was written by the show hosts, here. Other books mention the show to some degree or another when searching for it using Google Books. Shawn in Montreal made some very good points as well. I think there's enough now to reach a keep consensus. Dontreader (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As non-notable podcast. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources have been found by Shaun in montreal and Dontreader such as Advertising Age, book Podcasting Bible, NYTimes,BBC etc., so that WP:GNG is met. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG states that significant coverage. They're mostly just mentions. 14:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  - Walter Görlitz, you want more "significant coverage" to pass GNG? What about this article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel? Scroll to the left, to page 1A, to read the rest of the article. Or what about this article in the Park City Daily News, which begins with their story? What if we add the small coverage in this book? [39]? And in this book? [40]. It all adds up to significant coverage. Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." You want more? [41] and [42]. Plus the sources that have already been mentioned. You should have found these "new" sources yourself. I simply used the gadgets that are right here on the AfD page for finding sources, which are the same ones you are supposed to use before nominating an article for deletion. Read WP:BEFORE. You ignored section D. Dontreader (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know, when you accuse someone of doing or not doing something, it's a problem. I did BEFORE and found nothing because there was nothing. The sources you provided here are not substantial, but weight is starting to be met. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you think it was uncivil of me to say that you ignored section D of WP:BEFORE then I apologize for putting it that way. Maybe I should have said that you apparently forgot about section D instead. You claim you performed those searches and found nothing. Very well, I believe you. But then which words did you use for your search? All you had to do was search for "The Dawn and Drew Show" (with and without quotation marks). A Google Books search shows plenty of results, most of which I have cited already. A Google News archive search shows at the top of the list the two results that I provided. Any Wikipedian can confirm that what I'm saying is true. A Google News search shows a passing mention even in The Sydney Morning Herald [43], a passing mention in the Columbia Journalism Review (which another contributor already cited) [44], information that constitutes more than a passing mention in The New York Times (cited by the same editor) [45], passing mentions in Macworld [46], the San Francisco Chronicle [47], ABC News [48], BBC News [49] (already provided by another contributor), and more than a passing mention on PR Web which confirms that the show was on Sirius Satellite Radio [50]. So I do wonder which search words you used since you stated that you "did BEFORE and found nothing because there was nothing." Even if we forget about the passing mentions (although you should wonder why such prestigious sources would even mention a non-notable show), the article will be kept. 100% guaranteed. Finally, as a special gift for you, here's an archived version of an article in USA Today that covers the show at the beginning, and heavily towards the end [51]. Dontreader (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I did that, with the quotes, and did not hit either google books. However when editors who link directly to articles rather than breaking back links and who don't know how to correctly indent comments in discussions such as this start telling eitors how to do BEFORE, the world is a sorry place. I still think the article should be deleted because the coverage is not sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The world is a sorry place when some experienced Wikipedians let their ego get in the way, impairing their judgment. Who the hell cares about breaking back links or correctly indenting comments in these sorts of discussions? My style is clear enough. You are totally incompetent at searching for sources. That's what matters. If all Wikipedians were as useless as you at finding sources then Wikipedia would have zero articles. There would be no Wikipedia. Look, two voters changed their votes to Keep partially based on my input because they care more about the integrity of Wikipedia than about their egos. One of the two people that still believe the article should be deleted became a Wikipedian three days before he voted, and he made this edit to an article. You are in good company. Incidentally, there's actually a higher chance of woodchucks being from Pluto than this article getting deleted. Deal with it, and carry on with your big ego, my dear. Dontreader (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @Walter Görlitz: What do you mean by breaking backlinks? Rebb ing 20:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If you link directly to an article like this [[User:Walter Görlitz]], and you select "What links here" on that article, this article will be shown to be linked to that article. If you link to an article like this [[:User:Walter Görlitz]], with the colon, this article will not appear when you select "What links here". While I agree that two editors changed their votes,, I have no problems with that. Personal attacks are another matter. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you; I did not know that! When is it considered good form to use a non-backlinked link? (I looked at Help:Link § Wikilinks, mw:Links § Internal links, and MOS:LINK but found nothing on this point.) Rebb ing 04:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Generally on talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Park City Daily News
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Advertising Age
Podcasting Bible (subscription required)
Voice: Vocal Aesthetics in Digital Arts and Media. pp. 39–41.
USA Today
The New York Times (4 paragraphs)

Keep per Dontreader: it may be close, but I believe the subject falls on the fair side of the line. However, I have nothing against the nomination. Rebb ing 23:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this individual does not meet the notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. As there is no mention of Shat in the FaZe Clan article beyond in a list of managers (none of whom have articles), a redirect would not seem to be appropriate at this time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nordan Shat[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)

Biography of a YouTuber. Fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. - Mr X 13:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think it fails WP:ANYBIO, he has made a major contribution to the Call of Duty sniping community. However, article does lack lots of information. Pastorma (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the nomination is badly argued because WP:ANYBIO is a set of two additional criteria complementing WP:GNG, which is the guideline related to significant coverage in reliable sources (and which Shat unquestionably fails, from what I can see). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be kept because it has relevant information both about Shat himself, and the clan he is part of. As mentioned above, the article could be lacking some information, to some extent. But if we look at it from that perspective, many pages like this such as: CaptainSparklez should also be reviewed. Nordan is the largest figure in the Call of Duty sniping community and has grown his two channels combined larger than the clan he is part of.WP:ANYBIO Manvswow (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is that the article currently fails Wikipedia's standard for a subject having its own article, and your argument above doesn't address that at all. The fact that other articles are in equal or worse shape has no bearing on this particular article, it just means they may need to be deleted or redirected as well. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Manvswow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre user 'hat note' reads: "This is a article on a FaZe Clan member, to view the team itself please visit the article FaZe Clan." See WP:NOTWEBHOST. Shat is utterly non-notable in terms of any independent WP:RS about him individually. Delete and redirect to FaZe Clan. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge with FaZe Clan. There might be enough reliable sources to include him in that article, but I don't see enough to warrant an individual page. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps for now so it will not be restarted anytime soon and Redirect, simply no convincing signs yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 04:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subscribers are enough to show notability. I don't think it needs to be deleted.--Musa Talk 09:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Youtube subscribers" is not a valid criteria for notability on Wikipedia. Please read the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSPOPULAR is not an argument. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge with FaZe Clan. Rather clearly fails WP:GNG as pointed out by Shawn in Montreal. Subscriber count alone is not enough to show notability, secondary sources independent of the subject commenting on his subscriber count could be. Cannolis (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - He fails the WP:GNG, I don't see a single third party reliable source dedicated directly around the subject. His group has its own article though, so it could be a viable search term. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - lacks extended, independent coverage and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO for now.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Being popular doesn't automatically mean a person should have their own Wikipedia article. Maybe in the future, when reliable sources actually mention Shat there can be an article. But untill that time, an article is not needed. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matter how popular a YouTuber might be, the notability standards for YouTubers require reliable source coverage about them — no YouTuber ever gets an automatic "because they have X number of subscribers" freebie, if RS coverage in media is not present to support an article. But there's exactly zero RS coverage shown here. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, don't bother merging. Non-notable person. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that there is a lack of reliable independent sourcing to demonstrate her notability - writing multiple books is not in and of itself sufficient is the message given here - and so she does not currently meet the criteria for inclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Turpin Myers[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The strongest claim of notability here is that she was a shortlisted nominee for her local arts council's local literary awards in 2014 -- however, a literary award has to be national (on the order of the Governor General's Awards or the Giller or the Pulitzer), not local, for a nomination to constitute an AUTHOR pass in and of itself. She might still qualify for an article if she could be sourced over WP:GNG, but virtually zero of the sources here represent any sort of media coverage -- every single reference here is to a primary source or to a commercial sales page on an online bookstore, with the exception of one single solitary citation to one review in a college literary zine (and even that citation fails to provide the title of the review, or the specific issue in which it was published.) So WP:GNG hasn't been passed here either. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which any writer is automatically entitled to an article just because she exists -- reliable source coverage, supporting a claim of notability that satisfies WP:AUTHOR, must be present for them to earn one. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's sufficient notability given her multiple published works and she's still writing. Not written in an advertisement style. VanEman (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability or lack thereof is a factor of how much reliable source media coverage the topic has or hasn't received. No number of books is enough in and of itself to give their writer an exemption from having to be the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the original contributor, I disagree and feel this author is notable enough. I will go through the page and cite more media sources. Additionally, I feel that the author's inclusion in a number of established literary festivals and literary journals should speak to her notability. I originally created the page in response to the author's inclusion in WikiProject_Women_writers/Missing_articles. RhettFester (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for RhettFester - There are some problems with the sources that are here: many are not reliable sources (blogs, member profiles, etc.). Also, you have created references for her own works. References should be limited to sources about her. Her own works are given as a bibliography, but they are not cited. For the poems, you can use a form like "in: (name of journal), v.n, (date), (page)". Photographs and sound files of her reading are not about her, so those do not support notability. It is easier to see the reliable sources if non-reliable sources are removed from the article. LaMona (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for LaMona - Understood, thank you. I appreciate your guidance. I will try to improve the references. RhettFester (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 03:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 04:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor author who does not meet our notability guideline WP:AUTHOR. Participation in common literary festivals and publication in common literary journals does not confer notability. The notion that currently published writers are notable just by being published is surprising. Writers get published. Many truly notable writers are no longer active, since they are dead. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory of all currently active writers. Being active does not make a writer notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo Cabrera[edit]

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

Biography fails WP:BLP. Not a single independent source. A Google search turns up little to be able to help, and if I get rid of every unsourced statement there would be almost nothing left. Despite the bold claims in the article, it appears that this person is completely non-notable. Bradv 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a badly sourced article regarding an unremarkable person. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 06:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A nice person, I am sure, but not notable by any reasonable measure. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non-notable, google search turns up blank. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find anything to substantiate this persons notability. I tried to find additional sources to remove the ones that are there and/or ones which needed to be removed and I agree with Bradv; I turned up with nothing. Fishnagles (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Koi and the Kola Nuts[edit]

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

Not entirely sure what this is. Contested prod. Bradv 04:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 07:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep, this folktale meets WP:GNG as it has been related in a number of books including Tales from the Story Hat and Koi and the Kola Nuts: A Tale from Liberia by Verna Aardema, and Koi and the Kola Nuts by Brian Gleeson. WorldCat shows library holdings of over 400[52], over 500[53], and about 200[54] respectively. There are reviews from kirkus reviews, [55] - "Laced with the liberal humor that is Aardema’s hallmark, Koi’s story and his sturdy spirit will draw readers in, as will the many uses of the kola nut and the lesson of doing good for others. In Cepeda’s vibrant illustrations, the Liberian landscape glistens and its people dance across the page, while the last scene—of Koi as a chief—is a portrait of ebullience rewarded.", [56] - "The formula is tried and true; this (unsourced) African version is well paced, eventful, and spiced with colorful details, excellent for sharing aloud. Ruffins's subtly expressive art is rendered in a flat, childlike style with pleasingly gentle colors and faces and figures that recall African art.", and [57] - "Engrossing, often humorous, and refreshingly uncluttered, these stories should appeal to children of reading and pre-reading age."; Booklist - "Aardema's honed narrative and Cepeda's vigorous illustrations make this an attractive version." and Library Journal - "Her revision is accompanied by Cepeda's ebullient oil paintings; his vivid colors, often presented in unexpected combinations and applied thickly, add texture to the already dynamic compositions.", [58] Coolabahapple (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - Based on a number of news and web sources brought up by Google searches, it appears that "Koi and the Kola Nuts" is a children's folktale from Liberia that has been the subject of (a) a picture book for children that likely meets GNG for books based on reviews (as noted above), (b) a children's video on which Whoopi Goldberg and Herbie Hancock performed, and (c) a puppet show for children that has been presented in various places by various puppeteers. The article right now is deficient in that it does not get at any of this, but the actual tale appears to be notable. TheBlinkster (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) per limited participation here. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fauxtography[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Written as a dictionary entry (Previous successful deletion) Music1201 (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a large archive at Snopes, titled by this term, and for the same reason. The term has been used for years now, and has found it's way into the Urban Dictionary, even though that doesn't exactly qualify it. Plenty of fauxtagraphy gets spread around the internet (especially on Facebook and Twitter, where the dumbest and most gullible people are often found), and it would seem to me that it deserves the name it's been given. Also, it does seem to provide notable information - it's just not fully developed yet, considering it was only created today.
^K_Bⁿ_a^o_t^w_t^le_l^d_e^e
06:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Reading the current page, it seems that Photoshopped images constitutes Fauxtography where in other circles Fauxtography is used to point out fake photographers, usually as a result of them getting a Nikon or Canon camera kit from Costco for Christmas and after some crappy photos think they are they next Ansel Adams or Steve McCurry. Most notable via their use of Photoshop and the inclusion of their copyright/logo plastered on the image itself, the larger the logo the shittier the photo. See http://youarenotaphotographer.com. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Olivera[edit]

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

~~Non-notable photographer. Greek Legend (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)~~ confirmed blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as distinguished record on documentaries including winning a government award, although RS are needed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the google search, I see clear pass of WP:CREATIVE. Just need to add references (which I am trying to do) and improve the CV like style, but definitely worth keeping. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing particularly better and, although the article has several exhibitions listed, this is still questionable. Draft instead for now unless better improvements can be made soon, SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Should stay since they have contributed to many images accross the board. KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking meatpuppet !vote JMHamo (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Law Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Highly promotional in tone; no references, two external links to related sources. No independent in-depth coverage found with internet search. Near orphan (only linked article also proposed for deletion). MB (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It almost feels like an advert rewritten to not sound like an advert. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable enough (search it yourself for proof) Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like an advertisement. VanEman (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply an umbrella marketing organisation of no significance in itself. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that there is insufficient reliable, independent sourcing which could show that this record label meets the notability criteria at this time. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Garden Records[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had nothing but passing mentions in my music reliable sources custom Google search. I see no worthwhile redirect targets. czar 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. czar 23:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references or sources provided. The handful of notable associated acts that are linked to the page seem to have gained their notability regardless of an association with Paper Garden Records. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note in light of the article's recent cleanup that primary and unreliable sources aren't going to help at AfD, so it might be better to discuss the potential of the sources here before spending the time integrating them into the article. czar 06:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Upon my recent research in the last day, I have found that the label has a current and growing integral position in the independent music scene. The diverse label signs American artists, such as New York band ARMS, and foreign artists, such as Danish band Alcoholic Faith Mission from Copenhagen. The label's growing popularity is underscored by its recent signing to Sub Pop Licensing, opening its music to be licensed in countless famed films and television shows. Or its recent signing of the illustrious British folk singer David Thomas Broughton. Or its weekly and annual concerts and events, such as its annual distinguished residency at SXSW. I, a music fan and frequent and impartial Wikipedia editor, hope to establish the label's notable place in independent music not only in New York but across the country and around the globe in indie music. Thanks! MetropolisHearts (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As preempted above, Wikipedia doesn't establish notability for the topic—that's the job of reliable, secondary sources. The new sources are either primary (not independent, such as a press release), unreliable (blogs without fact-checking reputations), or passing mentions (not about the label, but mentioning the label incidentally). As it stands, there isn't enough sourcing for an article. czar 05:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to respectfully disagree on a comparative basis across Wikipedia, regarding notability. MetropolisHearts (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each article is addressed on its own merits—the adage here is "other stuff exists". If you have other things to nominate for deletion, go for it, but we don't keep articles just because we haven't addressed others. czar 16:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your selective interest in content quality is inane. If you wanted to actually show interest then why not check out Category:Record label stubs? MetropolisHearts (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the tone. Record label stubs are no more special than any other collection of stubs—we do one article at a time, each on its own merits. You're welcome to work on those stubs if you feel so inclined. czar 18:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft at best as the currently listed sources are noticeable but this article is still questionable for any better obvious notability and improvements. No serious needs for complete deletion, simply move to Draft and away from mainspace temporarily, SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this article in Creative Loafing, but it's more about an event than the record label. There were also a few more trivial mentions scattered about, such as this article in The New York Times. However, it's still a bit too soon for an article, as these are not in-depth coverage of the record label. I guess sending it to draft space would be OK, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of verifiable sources meaning notability has not been established. The artists listed are indicative that this topic MIGHT be notable but on their own they are a clue, not a conclusion. The philosophy of Wikipedia regarding sources is, roughly, "If a topic really is notable then there shouldn't be any trouble finding secondary sources to demonstrate it." The lack of such sources here means that this article does not pass Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion at this time. If such sources can be found in the future, this article can be recreated then, with no prejudice to the article creators.-Markeer 23:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rlendog (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Goggin[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHOCKEY criterion#4 as he appears to have being selected for an all star team Seasider91 (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being All-Ivy League Second Team does not count for passing NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contrary to the above to meet criteria #4 you have to have been one of the things listed in it. Thus a first all star team member. Not second. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond DJSasso's and Joeykai's comments, the Ivy League is not a major collegiate league. Some (but not all) of its members compete in ECAC play, but any Ivy League-only "all-star team" is certainly not official. Further, at the collegiate level, being an All-American is the fundamental level of notability, not conference all-star teams. That being said, the subject's modest and brief pro career doesn't meet either the GNG or NHOCKEY either. Ravenswing 16:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rlendog (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Taranto[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NHOCKEY criterion#4 as he appears to have being selected for an all star team Seasider91 (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being named to the CCHA Second All-Star Team does not count for passing NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet #4 as it specifically mentions First team all star. -DJSasso (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. nn player. Reso lute 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Mele[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undistinguished NN mid-minor league career, no evidence the subject passes the GNG. Ravenswing 08:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three minor league games played in the AHL, he's never done anything noteworthy and I can not find anything that is not routine coverage. Deadman137 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shavit Bar-On Gal-On Tzin Yagur[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Promotional article has no references, just a list of external references that fail as independent, in-depth coverage. Article was tagged with notability and unref in 2010 and tags were removed by IP editor a few months later without improvement. MB (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete this seems like an advertisement and should be CSD'ed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Davis (ice hockey)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN hockey player went from an undistinguished amateur career to an undistinguished Canadian collegiate career to an undistinguished minor league career. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence (and no likelihood) that he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 16:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and no evidence to show GNG is met.Mdtemp (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garet Hunt[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undrafted mid-minor leaguer thug without distinction of any sort that would meet NHOCKEY. No evidence he meets the GNG. Ravenswing 21:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet NHOCKEY, and while there is some limited local coverage, it isn't enough to be considered significant. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Lynch[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undistinguished (and fleeting) NN mid-minor league career, no evidence the subject passes the GNG. Another creation of User:Orlandkurtenbach, a frequent creator of NN articles for sometime-Vancouver area hockey players. Ravenswing 08:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no evidence of notability. Two footnotes: One to the NHL page (not a secondary source) and the second to an article primarily about another player. Markeer 19:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Courchaine (ice hockey, born 1989)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (sighs) Yet another "what was he thinking?" creation of a NN substub hockey article, and I'm almost at the point of writing WP:ITSFROMDOLOVIS into WP:COMMONOUTCOMES. Somewhat brazenly, he set forth that the "honour" qualifying this mid-minors goalie with no distinction for an article was being on a team that won its league championship. Fails NHOCKEY, no evidence that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 07:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gendur[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Undistinguished NN mid-minor league career, no evidence the subject passes the GNG, sources are all routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Another creation of User:Orlandkurtenbach, a frequent creator of NN articles for sometime-Vancouver area hockey players. Ravenswing 08:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This player falls well short of the criteria needed for an article. Deadman137 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rlendog (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Sanvido[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN amateur player with no accomplishments to speak of, fails NHOCKEY and the GNG going away. Of the sources presented, all are either primary from the organizations with which he's played, blogsites, or routine sports coverage of the sort explicitly barred from supporting notability per WP:ROUTINE. One of several such creations up at AfD of a semi-SPA who focuses on a handful of junior league teams, and writes in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia even if the players met notability standards. Ravenswing 04:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing GNG and other notability criteria, but I should remind Ravenswing that AfD is not Cleanup and an inappropriate style, is, in itself, not reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, no reminders needed. I expect you noticed that no such reason was proffered, "in itself," for deletion. Ravenswing 19:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, I did. I'm just saying that the fact that it was written "in a rah-rah fannish manner unsuitable for the encyclopedia" is not cause for deletion. I agree with the rest of what you said. Smartyllama (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article at it's current state at the time of closing, does meet our notability guideline, if only by a very minimal margin. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Massell[edit]

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

Self-created article which doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG, possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON Melcous (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER at best, still nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Daniel kenneth (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · SUL · CA · checkuser (log)) 18:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As made by subject of the article, also WP:TOOSOON . ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's getting roles. A positive review here in NY Daily News, a positive one-line review here, a name mention here, coverage here, and coverage here, a mention here, a paragraph in the New Yorker. She meets the WP:GNG. If article stays write something on my talk page and I'll try to fix it up.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the above poster has highlighted the coverage in Broadway World which is a bio and is a reliable source, also Playbill and New Yorker, passes WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The many sources establish notability although the article is an autobiography which may fail WP:NPOV. — Music1201 ^talk 21:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus at RSN last time it came up is that Broadway World is not a reliable source. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on what subject that BroadwayWorld.com is being used for. In the entertainment industry, I believe tabloids have a useful role in helping us get the story right; it's show business, we don't need peer-reviewed academic journals, which don't cover this anyway. Here is a report from BroadwayWorld....--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Massell was featured at Feinstein's/54 Below's "Broadway Princess Party" earlier this month, singing "God Help the Outcasts" from Disney's THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. ... Samantha Massell is currently playing Hodel in this season's revival of FIDDLER ON THE ROOF. Samantha made her Broadway debut at age 12 in Baz Luhrmann's production of Puccini's La Boheme. Most recently, Samantha originated the role of Florika and understudied Esmeralda in the US Premiere productions of Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame at Paper Mill Playhouse and La Jolla Playhouse. At the St. Louis MUNY, Samantha starred as Princess Jasmine in Aladdin, Rapunzel in Into the Woods opposite TONY winner Heather Headley, and Ursula in Bye Bye Birdie. Off-Broadway, she has appeared in the New York City Center Encores! productions of Little Me and It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Superman.Film/TV: Beatbox, ZUG, How to Be a Man. Samantha started her career in the children's chorus of The New York City Opera, where she appeared in a number of productions and made her soloist debut as Elizabeth in The Ballad of Baby Doe. Samantha is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of The University of Michigan, where she double majored in Musical Theater and English. -- (source: BroadwayWorld.com)

These details rings right. I doubt BroadwayWorld would make up stuff that she graduated Phi Beta Kappa from U. Michigan, or fabricate that Massell played Ursula in Bye Bye Birdie. There's no incentive for fabrication. Is it promotional, yes, but I think we can trust it, plus this information is consistent with other sources such as the NY Times and USA Today and Washington Post.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I emailed the Phi Beta Kappa chapter of U. Michigan and they responded that Samantha Massell was, indeed, inducted into it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided above are mostly about a film that meets notability guidelines. If this is all the coverage she has, then this article falls under WP:BLP1E. SSTflyer 00:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two events: Fiddler and Hunchback, plus a solid acting resume.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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