Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 April	16 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" 10:07, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CultWine[edit]

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

Promo and non notable. I had it marked for speedy A7 and promo, but another editor removed the tag.John from Idegon (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete, reads like WP:PROMO Sheepythemouse (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can kind of see why it was removed. It's promotional, but not so much so that it'd be completely unambiguous and the claim of being "one of the largest vintage and rare wine distributors in the world" is just enough to pass the very low bar of A7 claims. In other words, this is the type of thing that could potentially be restored and sent to AfD via DRV, so it's better to just let it run a full AfD. In any case, a search brings up almost nothing about this company and being a large company does not automatically give it notability. It's quite common for large, even wildly successful businesses to fail notability guidelines on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline G11, no WP:RS. Bazj (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete piece of self promotion. No references Zedopuppy (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely promotional piece. The only rferences I could find were passing mentions of the website in gNews articles mainly focused on wines. I found none that focused on this entity. Fails notability generally and as to a business. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as nothing at all to actually suggest any solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 22 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 Applied Micro Circuits Corporation. There is unanimous consensus that there should not be a separate article on this topic. If anyone wishes to merge any of the content then they can do so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3ware[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. History of a long dead corporation who developed a new packet switching algo.for optimising throughput on raid controllers. Company ended up at LSI, that most excellent company. Can't see how it's notable. Ancient history. scope_creep 22:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (AMCC), which presently only has a very short mention. Sources exist, but many of them cover the topic relative to AMCC's developments of the product. Source examples include [1], [2], [3], [4]. This will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is not at all independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 22 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 Deleted by Anthony Bradbury, who logged this AfD as reason, but didn't close the discussion, presumably by mistake, so I am closing it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep State[edit]

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

Band with no substantive or properly sourced claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. The strongest things here are that its lead singer was a non-winning competitor on The Voice, that one of its songs was selected as "Song of the Day" by a single local radio station, and that one of its other songs got included in a Spotify playlist. But simply being a competitor in a reality show is not a claim of notability in and of itself, notability-because-radio-play has to be tied to national terrestrial radio networks rather than individual stations or Spotify playlists, and the sourcing here is almost entirely to primary sources and blogs rather than to real media coverage about them. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a band is entitled to an article just because they exist -- real media coverage, supporting a claim of notability that passes NMUSIC, must be present for a band to earn an article on here. Delete. (Note also the redirect from Troy Ritchie, which was formerly a separate article but made no claim of independent notability substantive enough to get him a standalone WP:BLP as a separate topic from the band, as it was based on exactly the same set of inadequate sources that aren't cutting it here.) Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches noticeably found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Band has a couple of singles and an EP, which usually means self-published. Only one RS, and that one only confirms that he was eliminated on The Voice. Note that the article says he appeared but doesn't say that he was eliminated, which to me fails NPOV. Also promotional is link to iTunes, which is definitely not allowed as a reference. Early in this band's career, not notable at this time. LaMona (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And redirect to sleep. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is acceptable of course since it is applicable. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possible spam. The page creator and main editor is one Razorbladepr. The pr on the end is a bit of a giveaway. Anyway they have their own website www.razorbladepr.com which lists one of their (only?) clients as Sleep State. Mattojgb (talk) 10:34, 22 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. Well it's been a week since sources have been added and no one's refuted them or whatever so closing as Keep, Don't usually close on one !vote however the next relist would only gain another !Keep so wrapping it up as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto Scalbi[edit]

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

Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria, and has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. QueenCake (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nomination. Seems pointless, about an unknown racing driver. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sources clearly denote that the subject is not "unknown". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no context for any better notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Using the Find sources template atop this nomination provides evidence that the subject is not "unknown" nor that he exists as having no "context". For example, see this source and this source for starters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5], ^[6]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Augusto Scalbi festejó en Uruguay". Uno. (in Spanish)
^ "Con la fuerza de un año nuevo". Olé. (in Spanish)
^ "Con el pie derecho". Corsa. (in Spanish)
^ "Honda y Renault dejaron su marca". Mas Deportes. (in Spanish)
^ Ross Logan (29 March 2016). "How did he survive? Racing driver's car spins through the SIX times after 'brakes fail' at 136mph". Daily Mirror.
^ "Augusto Scalbi rolls over six times in car after losing control on 136mph bend". Daily Mail. 28 March 2016.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to give people time to evaluate the recently-presented sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 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 redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#January. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suzi Singstock[edit]

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

What is the notability of this small time "model and actress", being a Playmate of the Month and a teen beauty pageant winner, that's really all. In a nutshell, fail WP:NMODEL and I doubt any other of the Miss District of Columbia Teen USA winners has an article either. Donnie Park (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's simply nothing actually compelling for any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992#January, which is where Suzi Simpson already redirects. NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing to indicate standalone notability. SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NewYorkActuary. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate section in List of Playboy Playmates article. No evidence of stand alone notability. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:35, 21 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. nominator and only dissenting voice acknowledges notability per subject-specific guideline. No need to keep this open for purely administrative reasons Fenix down (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viorel Vasile Ignătescu[edit]

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

The subject is non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This article is also a stub on the Romanian Wikipedia, which means additional sourcing will be hard to find, if it exists. Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He played for FCM Bacău, who played in Divisia A, which is now a fully professional league. The question is when the Romanian Liga I became fully professional- the last season Bacau played in the top league was 2005-06. It's possible therefore that he passes WP:NFOOTY, asking at WT:FOOTY for advice. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^The aforementioned team was dissolved in 2014. Sheepythemouse (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but that doesn't mean that he's definitely not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with numerous appearances in Divizia A. Giant Snowman 12:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY, as the league was fully professional. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 200 appearances in fully-professional league? Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, obviously the subject is notable and I didnt do enough research, apologies ><. But can anybody deny that, for the accomplishments of this player, his page shows next-to-nothing? Sheepythemouse (talk) 01:10, 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" 10:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Johnston (negotiator)[edit]

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

I can't find enough secondary sources on the topic to be convinced that the subject meets the WP:GNG or WP:BIO; in fact, I can't really find any. The article has no sources and reads like a CV or an advertisement, and while those aren't reasons to delete, the lack of available secondary sources makes it impossible to create an acceptable article. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has a promotional tone. While this alone is not a reason for deletion, the tone of this article and lack of sourcing mean it should be deleted. Subject is also not known for anything other than one book, member of WP:BLP1E. Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Authoring one book does not seem notable enough for stand-alone biography article. Most authors on the book award page Next Generation Indie Book Awards do not have wikipedia bios. If book is notable, then it can be subject of an article and the author can be briefly described in that article. However, there do not seem to be any reliable sources that give feature content of the book and the author. Canuckle (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Book appears to be self-published, as "Negotiation Press" has exactly one book in the ISBN database here, and it is this one. Oddly, the name on it there is Peter H. Johnston, not Peter D. In any case, I don't find any obvious sources for him. LaMona (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing for better improvements for notability yet, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 22 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" 10:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield America Soundtrack Mixtape, Vol. 1[edit]

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

Non-notable free mixtape, fails WP:NALBUMS. Azealia911 _talk 19:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources – fails WP:GNG/WP:NALBUMS. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG / WP:NALBUMS, per source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that suggests any sort of notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 22 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" 10:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Cords[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN; Mr. Cords is a current candidate for local office who hopes to run for statewide office in six years. My research indicates that third-party coverage of this person addresses his high-school athletic history rather than his political candidacy. This doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of politicians, and I hope the article creator will read that guideline to understand why I'm making this nomination. (Reviewers/commenters: note that I did copy-edit the article for the duration, and if my deletion nomination is thus inappropriate on a COI basis, I will withdraw same in favor of another nominator.) Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Mr. Cords is actually known statewide for his political activities. If you view his twitter profile (@Cords4Governor) you will see he has worked with local politicians, state senate and house members, national lobbying groups and the governor himself. He is very prominent in local politics and is going to officially announce his candidacy on monday the 18th, generating the proper third party press coverage necessary to prevent this page from being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpledoglady (talk • contribs) — Purpledoglady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~*KEEP~~ This article appears to be fine. If you contact the DFL, you will be able to find out that Mr. Cords is a very prominent member and may actually become a 'super delegate' (a prominent political official who votes for presidential nominees) for the democratic national convention this summer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpledoglady (talk • contribs) — Purpledoglady (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Purpledoglady First of all, please make your comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. Also, sign your comments with ~~~~, and don't vote more than once- after all, this isn't a vote, but a discussion to reach a consensus. Also, Cords is not does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline or politician notability guidelines, as he hasn't held office in a national or state legislature. Being "prominent in local politics" or "a possible superdelegate" is not enough to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines, besides which, neither of those claims is reliably sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User:Purpledoglady is the creator of this article. Purpledoglady, please look at WP:BIO and review the rules. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:BIO, I found no good sources in my search. Not notable by any stretch of the imagination. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~ Mr. Cords does hold state office though, as he is a member of the state central committee and is involved in the nominations of candidates, the passing of and writing of party bylaws and is involved with the campaigns of 1 US Congressmen, one state senator and two state House of Representatives candidates. He was elected at caucus night and has been elected by fellow party delegates to hold these prestigious, statewide positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.47.11 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 68.112.47.11 (talk)Jack68.112.47.11 (talk)[reply]

IP is clearly same user as the article creator, so struck the multiple vote. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Statewide office", for our purposes, means the state legislature or the governor's cabinet — it does not mean his own political party's own internal organizing committee. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:POLITICIAN OR WP:BIO. Twitter is the sole reference and it is not a good one for notability purposes. Part of the article is about the young man's plans and intentions. It is only speculation as to whether he will follow through and become notable. Many people have worked with politicians or been involved in political activities in high school. That does not make them notable in itself. Many also have been on committees and involved in campaigns without meeting notability guidelines. This looks more like an effort to raise the profile of Ethan Cords in promotion of his future ambitions. More importantly, I found no other reliable, verifiable, neutral and independent coverage in a google search. Donner60 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a news article was found, would this page be kept? 68.112.47.11 (talk)Jack68.112.47.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A news article is not significant coverage. Find a significant number. Or just accept he isn't notable, which is the sensible, and easier, thing to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a week left on this discussion if I am correct. I will try to find one or more before that deadline. I hope we can have further discussions on this. 68.112.47.11 (talk)Jack68.112.47.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC) https://m.facebook.com/OwatonnaIkes/photos/pb.1417827575098136.-2207520000.1460760905./1729173760630181/?type=3&source=54&refid=17 Here is a Facebook post about him lobbying on behalf of the Izaak Walton League. 68.112.47.11 (talk)Jack68.112.47.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC) http://ci.owatonna.mn.us/sites/default/files/documents/2011/01/2015-04-07_Packet.pdf Here is an official document from the City of Owatonna, mentioning Mr. Cords. 68.112.47.11 (talk)Jack68.112.47.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So you state that the Owatonnoa document mentions "Me. Cords." This means you are the author of the article about yourself which is a conflict of interest. See: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest; Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Also the "official document's" mention of Ethan Cords simply is: "Mayor Kuntz introduced Mr. Ethan Cords, an Owatonna High School student that is interested in local government." That does not establish notability by any means. Facebook is not necessarily a reliable source. In this case, the only page publicly available is a picture of five volunteers. Even if there is an article saying these people were volunteers for the group, that does not establish that they are notable under Wikipedia guidelines or have received significant coverage from reliable, verifiable, neutral, third-party sources. See list of applicable Wikipedia pages in the further comment below. Donner60 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook posts are not reliable sources. Real media or bust. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate you people do not live in Minnesota, where you would surely know of him, Cords was endorsed by a state senator and five other important figures such as the President of the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purpledoglady (talk • contribs) 23:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care if he was endorsed by Barack Obama, George Clooney, Mark Zuckerberg or God. A person has to win, not just run for, election to a state-level, not local, office to get a Wikipedia article under WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Agree, fails to assert WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN scope_creep 00:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed that none of you believe what I have said simply because I can not source it to anybody accept for the politician, Mr. Cords, himself from his Twitter feed. For the most part, I respect you people, but I feel as if though, you are not giving fair and equal consideration to my half of the arguement. Purpledoglady (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly eligible for speedy deletion. Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This individual is just simply not notable by our standards. On a sidenote, the very disruptive behaviour by the page creator does not make people more likely to favour keeping this article. AusLondonder (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability ("Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."), Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (including sections: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion; Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; Wikipedia is not a newspaper and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) for applicable guidelines, policies and requirements for articles and sourcing. Donner60 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails NPOL and GNG. I recommend that the article creator consider reviewing the notability policies listed above. GAB^Hello! 15:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — but nothing else here suggests or sources any reason why he could be considered to have preexisting notability for anything. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November 2022 if he really does run and win in the gubernatorial election at that time — the city council seat he's currently running for won't get him over the bar even if he does win that in November 2016, because smalltown city councillors don't get Wikipedia articles either. Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am in Owatonna, and I have never heard of him. Fails all criteria for notability. 156.99.82.156 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed my typo saying Me. Cords instead of Mr. Cords. 68.112.47.11 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)Jack68.112.47.11 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we assume good faith, my conflict of interest point may be discounted. My other points about the trivial nature of the coverage or its failure to show notability and the unacceptability of Facebook as a source still stand - as well as my initial comments. Donner60 (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Donner60, subject has yet to receive requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 22 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" 11:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Reeder[edit]

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

This majority of this article is original research and appears to be written by the subject himself. Not convinced that this passed WP:GNG T v x1 19:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though we don't have a specific notability policy for WP:SONICARTIST, we do have one for WP:MUSICIAN, which this article does not meet. We have one non-trivial bit of coverage, but it's from Banbury Guardian, a local tabloid. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Doesn't pass WP:MUSICIAN, no sources from my search. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography of a non-notable musician. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing yet for a better improvable article. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 22 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" 14:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AQQ[edit]

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

Software with no indication of notability. Prodded and endorsed--prod tag removed by article creator without explanation or addressing of notability concerns. --Finngall ^talk 18:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone check if now is good? --Sauler95 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best for now as my searches are not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found outside of software website -- and if there are sources they will be in Polish and probably not easily findable from US-Google. The article says it's developed by a single person, Daniel Zaborowski and the website lists him as "owner" - (Właściciel), but nothing about the company or staff. Not near meeting GNG. LaMona (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything like in-depth coverage in Polish sources, few mentions in passing in some minor lists of Polish software/IMs and such, the usual reviews on the download sites, nothing else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 20 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 clear consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of dropouts[edit]

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

Not sure how this previously survived AFD. It is purely listcruft. Even if all of these were sourced, dropping out is rarely (if ever) relevant to people's notability to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even tell from the Afd closure statement what the heck the decision was: you know, sometimes we can get a little too cute with these things? It looks to me like it was closed as delete, but the edit history of the list seems to show otherwise? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its a Crystal Ball major issue waiting to happen. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood. It's not predicting people will drop out. It's people who have. I still would support deletion but it is not a case of WP:CBALL. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a good article, although WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP, it is pointless to maintain. Listcruft, not relevant, and if this was a list of ALL dropouts, the article would be way too long. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonspecific, useless, and criteria for being a "dropout" is vague, at best Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the above. The definition and the context behind a "dropout" is clearly nebulous. If there really was a strong need or encyclopedic benefit in knowing who dropped out of school or didn't complete their education, Categorize could be an option, but I don't feel very strongly about it. Definitely a delete though. GabeIglesia (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is also kind of a good point. For example, it was fairly common for men in 1700s America (and in some of the surrounding time periods) to start on a college education but never actually finish it. If anything, it was actually fairly expected that they'd go for a little while and then move on to other things without finishing their degree. This means that there is the possibility here for a list so incredibly long that it'd be pretty unwieldy. I'd say that if we were to have anything, it should be a category. I'd also suggest that the wording get changed. The reason for this is that the term "dropout" is inherently negative (like they dropped out due to poor grades, drugs, or some other attribute seen as negative) and is almost always used in a detrimental fashion. It'd be far better to use terminology like "did not complete schooling" or something like that, if it can be done in a less clunky fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a good point because we have a clear guideline WP:CLN which explains that "the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists". Andrew D. (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes I agree with Andrew that that line of argument is a head scratcher: is it's too "nebulous" or non-notable for a list, I fail to see how it could ever work as a defining category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify what I meant by "nebulous," and Tokyogirl79 fortunately was able to do that for me a little bit. My line of thinking was that there's a negative connotation to the term "dropout," and a blanket list of all dropouts rather ignores the different contexts for why people drop out. Various people drop out for financial reasons, health reasons, family reasons, or others; some are beyond the subject's control, and others are based on the subject's own volition. It seems that the list is more accurately a (non-exhaustible) list of people who simply didn't complete their education for whatever reason, and I don't see much encyclopedic purpose in listing that in an entire article. To think about it another way, consider that we have various categories and article lists of alumni of various institutions. These lists and categories are useful because they help identify the educational affiliation and experience of notable people. To my understanding, most people who drop out of an institution aren't notable for dropping out but are notable for something else (perhaps Mark Zuckerberg and his first work on Facebook might be an exception, but that's quite a unique exception), so I don't see a necessity or an encyclopedic benefit in highlighting this beyond what is already mentioned in the education sections of their respective articles. I hope this clarifies my position. GabeIglesia (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is well-sourced and clearly passes the relevant guideline, WP:LISTN. The nomination is poor as "listcruft" is not policy; not even close. Andrew D. (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which says Wikipedia is not the place for excessive listings. This is not by any reasonable measure worth keeping. Being a dropout isn't really relevant to what people are noted for regardless of sourcing within article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename and turn into categories. I still stand by my point that if this classification is to be kept in any format, it should be renamed and it should be in category format because of the sheer amount of names that could qualify for this list in any given form or fashion. For a bit of a better explanation, here's what I suggest:

That this be moved to a category format. There are hundreds upon hundreds of names that could qualify for this list. The only reason we don't see more than a few dozen on this list right now is because they haven't been added. Trust me when I say that this is a list that has the potential to be extremely bulky and untenable in any format other than categorization - which is the format that has been used whenever we have a large amount of articles that could pertain to a specific qualification.
That this be renamed to category types that pertain to the various types of schooling that each person did not complete. For example, the categories would be something like this: Category:People who did not finish primary education, Category:People who did not finish secondary education, Category:People who did not finish higher education, and so on. I imagine that the bulk of names would fall within the last two categories. We can have one primary category, which I'd recommend be Category:People who did not finish higher education, since there are more people that fall into that category than any other, and put 1-2 paragraphs at the top of the category explaining the classification and also naming the other categories that could also pertain to this classification.

Now the problem with using the term "dropout" is that as stated above, there are some extremely negative associations with the term and it also does not take into account the various reasons people could not finish their education, especially as dropping out gives off the impression of the person voluntarily leaving the educational system, most frequently because of poor grades or some other reason that's almost always seen as negative. Not everyone leaves of their own accord and not every reason for leaving is negative, per some of the examples I listed in my prior post. Renaming this to the above category names will not only remove the negative assumptions that come with the term "drop out" but it'd also help with some of the BLP issues since I can already predict that if this is left as "dropout" then we will have people contesting the addition of names because the term is inherently negative, comes with very specific preconceived notions (most of which are negative), and the average person may not automatically assume that someone that left because they were "taking a break" (and then just never went back) would automatically be considered a dropout. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also support a delete since I can see the argument that for many, this might not be that major to add. There are also some slightly unclear areas, such as (for example) someone in the early days of the US going to college but then leaving (as this was expected in the day), then going on to apprentice under a lawyer and pass the bar. Technically that person didn't complete their university degree, although they still managed to obtain a license to practice. These are all things that we have to consider when creating any sort of list or categories of this nature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename and turn into categories per Tokyogirl79 above. "Dropout" is a relatively recent and negative term. Until at least the early part of the 20th century it was fairly common for people to consider their education finished without formal "graduations" or, in the case of college, the conferral of a degree, for a variety of reasons, including lack of availability of formal education in all areas, cost of education, less requirement for formal education to get decent jobs, and the possibility of entering a field through self-education, on-the-job training or an apprenticeship program. Calling historic figures "dropouts" is applying a misleading modern standard to their education. With respect to modern "dropouts", for living people there are potential BLP issues with classifying people using a term with negative connotations. If a person does not finish high school but later completes an equivalency diploma, are they still considered a "dropout"? If a person leaves college but later is awarded an honorary degree, are they still considered a "dropout"? (There have been cases of celebrities taking their honorary degrees seriously and demanding to be called Dr. so and so.) At the very least, the terminology used should be "People who did not complete primary education", "People who did not complete an undergraduate degree" etc. rather than "dropouts" in order to maintain NPOV. TheBlinkster (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize instead as this is certainly questionable for a solid article. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 22 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 re-evaluation after listing has produced unanimity.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neha Rathore[edit]

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

Non-notable female boxer. Lacks the coverage to meet the GNG and also fails to meet WP:NBOX. Winning a state amateur championship and being invited to compete at the national amateur championships is not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Seems to be just a piece of promotion. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I found multiple references to her in national publications and given she's competitive at a national level in a country as populous as India. VanEman (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please list the ones that show significant coverage and not just results? Papaursa (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this to give @VanEman: an opportunity to provide the sources claimed to exist. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing how WP:NBOX is met here. Also not seeing any coverage that would satisfy the general notability guidelines. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for giving me some time to check out the references I saw. The one that really profiled her was http://www.trendchamp.com/neha-rathore/ , but the others, to Papaursa's point, were really just listings of names and results. Should be a "delete". Thanks for your patience! VanEman (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you now believe the article should be deleted, I have crossed out your keep vote above in an attempt to minimize confusion. Papaursa (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither WP:NBOX or WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this seems clear, delete since nothing seems convincing to keep and improve. The current article has nothing convincing of better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:36, 22 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. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Stanciu[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Even after she makes her scheduled UFC debut, she will not meet WP:NMMA. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. No objection to saving copy of article in userspace until she becomes notable.Mdtemp (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "multiple issues" banner was just added recently. Keep it there and allow an opportunity to improve the article. VanEman (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That a banner was added recently does not indicate notability or justify a vote to keep the article. Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When COI's create articles, they need to be deleted unless the subject without question passes notability, otherwise we will continue to over cover American people and undercover Congoleese people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of room for the article to be improved, the issue of persons editing being close to the subject I dont feel is an issue. Its not a situation where the page is about someone political, or in the media etc, so bias not an issue. If there was to be deletion it would be under notability, which technically she does not fill but the lack of womens organisations on the notability list doesnt really help. As the first Romanian in the UFC i would say that is notable. Dimspace (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you admit she doesn't meet any notability criteria, what is the basis of your vote to keep the article? Being the first female Romanian fighter in the UFC is not a notability criteria (and is an unsourced claim). Papaursa (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article doesn't have to be political to be biased. People are biased towards their friends and sports teams.Mdtemp (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because she's Wushu National Champion (Seniors). Additionally bronze medalist in the World and Euro Champs (Juniors). Furthermore, she's the first ever Romanian to compete in the UFC (Man or Woman). Dariusz gibak (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your first edit so you might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies such as the one on notability (WP:N). There are also policies on notability for athletes (WP:NSPORT) and MMA (WP:NMMA). Junior events do not show notability because that's not considered competing at the highest level. Being the first female fighter in the UFC also doesn't meet any notability criteria when she fails the basic criteria for MMA fighters.Mdtemp (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She made her debut in a major UFC event five days ago. She may technically not have been notable when this AfD was created because the event hadn't happened yet, but it has now. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMMA asks for 3 top tier appearances. She lost her first fight which makes a run of three less likely.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter and I don't see the coverage needed to show she meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NMMA. I found no reliable coverage that could be used to save the article. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 00:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. May become ready for inclusion with a couple more pro fights under her belt. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:21, 25 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" 15:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LeetCode[edit]

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

New non-notable; no references available to suport notability. Only refs on article are low-quality Quora or Blog refs. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, SPA. –Be..anyone 💩 09:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches are simply not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - web site article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent RS references. Refs provided are incidental mentions, non-RS sources, and a student newspaper. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:59, 20 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" 15:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Hillmer Bonaduce[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD, nominated for WP:NOTINHERITED rationale as a small-time actress and reality TV star focused on her then husband. Minimal if not any decent coverage at all with one major coverage from a "free weekly community newspaper" and the only major source (LA Times) covering her divorce. Donnie Park (talk) 17:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agreed with the PROD, and I agree with the nominator now. Notability is not inherited, and she fails WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing compelling for any independent notability here. SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. The only sources I can find a of the "celebrity gossip" type, and in particular those where the "celebrity" participates. No mainstream coverage. LaMona (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because a) I proposed deletion via PROD and b) everything said above. Brianhe (talk) 11:22, 20 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) 07:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical (vehicle)[edit]

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

This is taking a recent term for improvised fighting vehicles and dragging it kicking and screaming into the past. There's material here, perhaps, for a smaller more focused article, or a larger, renamed or merged one. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep You failed to make a proper argument in accordance with WP:DEL. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It completely overlaps with Improvised fighting vehicle. Sorry, I thought that part was obvious. Anmccaff (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A "technical" is a fairly specific type of fighting vehicle, and a highly notable type. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Specific? It's a pickup with a gun of some kind in the back, a usage that goes back as far as pickups do. Beyond, if you count the earlier parallel with wagons and carts. Dunno about the notability (by this name), either. "gun truck," "battlewagon," &cet. Certainly there's a lot of recent usage; how much of that is Wiki-circular is an important question. Anmccaff (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Notability, I first saw this term used in a video game back in 2003, and it was specifically used for a civilian pickup truck with a machine gun in the back. It is not wiki-circular in my mind. 45.49.121.83 (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't say "just Wiki-circular" or "only Wiki-circular." A usage in 2003, not long after the Unpleasantness in Somalia began, is somewhat unlikely to be cribbed from Wiki. In fact, it may be directly based on actual real-world usage. On the other hand, ISIS was not providing "technical support" to the UN very much. Nor was Pershing, and similar kluges were used in the Punitive Expedition. Here, for example, we can see lewis guns mounted on Model T pick-em-ups.

This article is anachronistic presentism Merge it. Anmccaff (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entirely notable, though will need to be defined carefully in order to start the article *only* when the term technical came into use; clearly there have been entirely separate improvised fighting vehicles (Semple Tank etc) for decades. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When and where; the term spread from Somalia, so the usage wasn't picked up in other places that already had war reporters until quite later. More importantly, when you can show an easy example from 1916 that's identical conceptually, the idea that it was some sort of innovation just doesn't hold water. Anmccaff (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and I nearly closed it myself, this is convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 22 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 Wyandotte, Michigan#Sports and recreation. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

V.F.W Playfield Wyandotte MI[edit]

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

Non-notable local park. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism, and SNOW close. The creator is a puppetmaster who is attempting to use Wikipedia as a data repository for an app he is building, and he has created and re-created many such pages. —swpb^T 15:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The create is not a puppetmaster. The three accounts are different students in the same class who are building an app as a school project. Their page creations are ill-advised, but not malevolent. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I do not think that the edits are malevolent, this should not be on Wikipedia. Delete it for now until we can work something out with the students. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Wyandotte,_Michigan#Sports_and_recreation as I just did with the related article in the WAA Park in the same town. These aren't malicious creations, and it's a waste to lose this innocuous research. Invalid as a standalone article, but seems perfectly serviceable as a line or two in the overall article on the location. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the students are being treated to a good lesson on how welcoming Wikipedia is for good faith additions that don't meet our (less than obvious to the outsiders) norms. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I suppose as I'm not entirely confident this would be a better article for the future, but it's not an explictly needed deletion either. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 22 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 Deleted--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 13:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Bradford[edit]

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

This article appears to be a long-lived hoax. No such player was nominated for the Outland Trophy in 1984, nor did New Mexico football participate in a bowl game during this time period. The article creator's other edits all appear to consist of changes to other articles to support this hoax. Calamondin12 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G3 by me. SwisterTwister talk 17:41, 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 redirect to Rape in India#Notable incidents. The content is available under the redirect for anyone wishing to merge. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Greater Noida Rape Case[edit]

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

Had nominated it for speedy deletion previously, but was declined. Nominating per WP:NOTNEWS. The incident doesn't seem to have any WP:LASTING effects and neither WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. The article itself has not been edited since about a month making me doubt its notability. Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTNEWS states "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" so the nomination criteria is unclear. Secondly, this incident received international attention and analysis, such as in ABC Australia, BBC (United Kingdom) and New York Times (US) AusLondonder (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me clarify that I'm nominating it for deletion since I cannot see the significance of this event. I cannot see WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, nor any WP:LASTING effects. The event is not notable according to WP:EVENTCRITERIA which states Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I used WP:NOTNEWS is because it also states However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. followed by criteria which states why routine news reports may not be suitable for including in Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lemongirl942, The guidelines are routinely interpreted as saying that a story that receives the kind of worldwide coverage AusLondoner links to above is not the kind of "routine" story covered by NOTNEWS. While rape is a horrible, violent crime by definition, the distinction here is between a type of rape that gets covered only in local press, and one that for whatever reason gets international coverage. The only way to know this, is to participate regularly in AFD discussions on events in the news. The language is not as clear as it could be. I don't know if you're relatively new to Wikipedia, New(ish) to AFD, or just new to AFD discussions re: events in the news. Certainly new editors are welcome here, as everywhere on WP. And, just fyi, it is entirely acceptable to withdraw an opinion or AFD nomination simply by writing that you have changed your mind after coming to understand the policy that applies. Best, E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DIVERSE, WP:INDEPTH and WP:RAPID. Rape, rape-murders is a burning political issue in India. This has drawn major national and international coverage (multiple media sources ran the story in Britain, Australia, the U.S., and other countries). Moreover, the "boyfriend" has been arrested, and no crystal ball is required to see that this will generate further coverage. WP:NOTABLENEWS "Notnews does not prohibit the creation of articles about current events that receives extended and in-depth news coverage." and "Sometimes the exact long-lasting impact of a current event in the news will not be apparent, but common sense dictates that there will be an impact." Sources exist to expand article. As per WP:RAPID, it is wiser to keep this, and revisit in a few months.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this for deletion a month after the event when I saw no edits being made to the page and no coverage in the media. If you notice, other than a news spike around 8-10 March, there doesn't seem to be any further coverage of this incident. I would be glad if someone could point out further coverage of this incident to me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just added one. I suspect there are more out there, I didn't do a lot of searching, and of, course the trial will generate coverage. Here's my news google search: [5], as a shortcut for other editors asessing this. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I searched about the incident extensively and was unable to find more than 2 links (there are quite a few false positives as there have been multiple cases where a girl has been raped and set on fire). If I order the news coverage by date, I can only see this one link on 25 March and another editorial referencing the event (on searching with these keywords) . I just feel that if this was indeed an important case, at least the 2 widely read newspapers in India Hindustan Times and The Times of India should have continued covering it, which is clearly not the case here. You can contrast this with another incident that happened on 30 March (in which a girl was raped and later set herself on fire) which seems to be receiving continued coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have to beware searches, which vary by geography and other factors, and keep WP:NOTTEMPORARY and WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind. That said, I'm not arguing that this is the most notorious rape murder ever, just that the coverage passes WP:GNG. There were authored (not mere reprints of wire soties) stories in papers worldwide, see: [[6]], [7], a large public funeral [8] official denialism [[9]], and more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DIVERSE, WP:INDEPTH and WP:RAPID. Good research by E.M Gregory.BabbaQ (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the public outrage in India over this issue, the sheer size of India, and the number of widely covered and arguably notable rape cases that occur there every year, I would support moving this page to a title such as Notable rape cases in India, 2016 and encouraging editors to Merge all most the most extraordinarily notable cases to it. What say, User:Lemongirl942, User:AusLondonder?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be a great solution! I noticed that there are multiple cases which are notable and it would be easier to organise them under a single article. (There is an existing article Rape_in_India#Notable_incidents where some cases are mentioned, but it would be preferable to organise them by year like you said). Of course, major cases could always be split off later to their own articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you say. It will make a better, more useful article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarlett Keeling about another case. I'm quite surprised this was deleted considering that it seems to be generating coverage even in 2016. Perhaps it was deleted because of WP:BIO1E. Cases like these can be added as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting considering this could be closed as Keep (including if I vote as such) but I'm still not confident about this being comfortable Kept thus I'm relisting for better attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perhaps and Draft if needed as I'm still questionable this being a solidly acceptable article after the fact. SwisterTwister talk 05:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Rape in India#Notable incidents for the time being. I like E.M.Gregory's idea of creating a new compilation article, but since it doesn't exist yet, I don't see any reason these few lines can't be merged to the main page for now and split off when need be. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Rape in India#Notable incidents for the time being. RAPID is somwhat contradicted by CRYSTAL, we cannot see yet whether this event is going to be notable in its own right. If merged, it is anyway more useful to someone interested in the general topic, rather than this specific incident, to 'collate' the phenomenon within a context.Pincrete (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per reasoning outlined by AdventurousSquirrel and Pincrete. While we are WP:NOTNEWS, there is international coverage, and is part of a bigger picture as noted above. This DOES belong on Wikipedia, but I don't feel it warrants it's own article (yet, at least). Chrisw80 (talk) 22:30, 25 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 14:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiana Tajammol[edit]

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

An autobiography of a non-notable actress. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing actually convincing of any solid independent notability, not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only finding photos of her and the expected brief mentions. Clearly TOOSOON. GAB^Hello! 21:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any sources that support the claim that Kiana Tajammol is an Iranian visual artist , photographer … All we have is that she played a role in the movie A Dragon Arrives! which is not enough to make her notable. 14:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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" 15:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Squigs[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Looking up "squigs" brings up a lot of searches on the custom WP:VG/RS Google search engine. But a squig is also a creature from Warhammer 40,000. "squigs amiga" brings up a total of 8 results, 4 of which don't mention Squigs. Redirect to developer Jon Hibbins. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the suggested redirect, I've nominated Jon Hibbins for deletion [10] as well. I don't think there are sources to support notability for that subject, either. Msnicki (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some cheating with OR/COI is okay for me, but that's getting out of hand. Minimally it requires a third-party reference to confirm some kind of historical (1993) relevance. –Be..anyone 💩 09:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches also turned up nothing. WP:GNG requires that notability be demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail. So far as I can tell, those source simply do not exist. Msnicki (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as my searches are only finding a few links, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 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 A detailed assessment of the unusually long thread produces a clear and reasoned consensus. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schaul[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any coverage of the subject in reliable sources. The references cited are mainly primary sources written by the subject or biographies on sites where he writes, which are of no use for establishing notability. A long way of meeting the requirements of WP:BIO SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a G4, or failing that just delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed the previous AFD before nominating this again but have since checked the deleted version and it is substantially different so G4 doesn't apply. SmartSE (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I recovered this 2004 story about the subject at Cleveland Jewish News before realizing it was already cited via HighBeam. At any rate the other link is here, full story for consideration by those without HighBeam access. Brianhe (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if this appears to be a recreated article.Other than some minor TV appearances, does not assert notability. If all else fails, I'd say purge considering it's been created by a COI editor or at least that will set an example to what happen to paid editors. Donnie Park (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSE said above that this version is "substantially different" from the 2010 version, which means it is not a recreation. The other statement about setting an example is not policy based. Brianhe (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Editors, I really apologize for creating such concern here and for other pages I have recently created. I have had a blast contributing to Wikipedia and yes, I have been compensated for a few articles recently. I made note of it on the respective pages. I do now regret that I accepted compensation. I didn't realize it would upset the editorial community as it has and I apologize for it. I inquired about compensation in the chat room when some one asked me to create a page, and an editor kindly directed me to how to follow procedure. In addition, I admit that I've made a lot of mistakes since I started contributing both to my own page and to others I have either edited or created, but I have really tried to be as neutral and objective as possible. In some instances, I lost perspective and was corrected. I'm still learning and I use both the chat room and talk pages of other editors to help me navigate around. I was really alarmed by this notice and tonight reached out to an editor who I have been consulting with and this what they responded with when I asked if I could be blocked or banned from editing my own page to avoid any concern:

"jordan Schaul page

Hi, Jpop. I'm not sure, but I believe any editor can voluntarily pledge to topic-ban themselves from editing a particular article. I haven't run across this before, but you might try posting a query outlining your and the other editor's concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. You might also make a case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul (2nd nomination) — and do feel free to mention that you've worked with me over the last year or two on trying to make the article read neutrally and encyclopedically, including with a Criticism section. (Since I've edited the article, I haven't weighed in on the deletion discussion. But I hope these two suggestions help._ --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)"

With this said, I would gladly topic-ban myself from editing this article or post query as suggested if you all think that would make sense. I would just ask for someone to instruct me on how to do it. I appreciate all your concerns and I don't want to cause any conflict regarding this page or others. I've really enjoyed Wikipedia immensely and hope to get a better understanding of policy. I really like to write in this encyclopedic style, but I realize that I need to pay close attention to guidelines and policies. Thank you for letting me share. I welcome any more feedback either here or on my page. RegardsJpop73 (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Dear Editors, Thank you for sharing this proposed deletion debate in other discussions. I hope the editors will adhere to policy based protocols and not take punitive measures because of the fact that I disclosed that I was compensated for creating a few biographies in the recent past. I certainly thought that I was following policy as I mentioned above by disclosing such information.

My biographical entry on the National Geographic website (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/author/jschaul/) is a fairly current and accurate account of my career as a zoologist and nature writer. However, it does not include my more recent board service to ZooNation (http://zoonation.org/about-us/leadership/) or Nsefu Wildlife Conservation Foundation (http://nsefuwildlife.com/board-of-directors.html) or my board service to the Northwest Autism Foundation. My writings include articles about my colleagues as well as my own conservation projects, including this wood bison project (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2010/08/12/wood_bison_return_to_alaska_range/).

In addition, I have a verified Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/jordan.schaul/?fref=ts) with 7000 plus followers, which emphasizes my work as a writer. I don't know if a verified social media account in itself establishes notability, but it is not something listed on my Wikipedia profile and so I thought I would share it. Thank you again for letting me contribute to this discussion. I appreciate itJpop73 (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still nothing to suggest any solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear SwisterTwister, Thank you for your note. With respect, I'm not sure I understand what "solid independent notability" means. As a journalist, including 4 years writing for NAT GEO, I feel that I established independent notability as my articles were featured as front page articles online, but many were cross posted in numerous other publications. According to Wikipedia policy, as I understand, journalists don't neccesssarily get secondary coverage, but they can be deemed notable for their contributions to primary resources.

On another note, I noticed that the first attempt to delete this article was unsuccessful and that was before new references were added and the article was changed and updated. So may I ask what is different this time? Thanks againJpop73 (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first attempt to delete this article in 2010 was successful. However, you recreated it. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear (talk), My apologies. I just clicked on the link above and it does say that the result was delete. I misunderstood and I apologize. I completely misread the top part. Sorry for the oversightJpop73 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editors,

In reviewing references, I just noticed mention of my IUCN role as a bear expert as mentioned in this quote in Discovery News in the following article, which I forgot I was featured in and not the author of. Again, I'm a journalist, but I do contribute my expertise to media sources, as this example suggests. In addition, my radio interviews include me as a subject as well as the interviewer like a segment I did for Minnesota Public Radio. So I wonder if my dual role may add to confusion. I also write a lot of opinion pieces, which I think are different than straight news: http://news.discovery.com/animals/zoo-animals/bears-cubs-drought-120814.htm Hence, I wonder if my article should be focused more on journalism than on zoology?

"In arid regions of the Southwest, my concern would be that water associated with human dwellings along with some succulent food resources could draw bears into more populated areas," said Jordan Schaul of the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center and outreach coordinator for the IUCN BSG."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpop73 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 13 April 2016

@Jpop73: The crucial thing that we require to include a biography is that sources exist that are written about you rather than by you. There are many journalists but only relatively few of them are notable. It is not up to us as editors to judge what you have written or what you have done and decide whether or not it is notable, other reputable independent sources need to have done so. SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, here is another secondary source that was also noted on the COI page:

"Here is one example of a media outlet, which interviewed me on the future of zoos for Minnesota Public Radio. This a secondary reference, not a primary source, but is just one example that the editors refuse to consider as a source where my expertise on zoos was valued. The coverage was on me as the subject of the interview. http://www.mprnews.org/story/2012/07/12/daily-circuit-future-of-zoos I just don't understand why the editors/administrators who nominated my article for deletion continue to dismiss this kind of information.Jpop73 (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)"Jpop73 (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this would be helpful or not http://www.raintees.com/rain-tees-interview-jordan-schaul-1475/ thanksJpop73 (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC) Evidentlyy this is archived but on a black listed site Jpop73 (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) I have a screen shot of it, but I don't know how to share it. Can someone advise?Jpop73 (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Smartse, I understand, but I was invited to contribute to relatively notable publications and I'm also a content expert and for example contributed both as an ex officio council member of the International Association for Bear Research & Management and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Bear Specialist Group. I don't think that I am a typical journalist and if you read the criticisms section on my page, you'll see that although controversial, my opinions were noted and addressed in the articles of others. In addition, some in the editorial community feel that this is retribution for my paid contributions and is not a coincidence, particularly given that I recieved 12 messages in one day stating that my own article and others I created have been proposed for deletion. They further question why my own article was reviewed and accepted a long time ago and suddenly due to to controversy over me following policy over paid contributions, my article is now being proposed for deletion. It seems a little suspicious to myself and others. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition this was noted by one editor, in support of my argument: "I have strong reason to believe that this suite of articles was written by a well meaning individual. Note that by disclosing the articles he was paid to create, he is following our terms of service More than one article up for deletion is legitimately notable. If it's excessively promotional, take the promotional fluff out. Basically, none of this stuff would be up for deletion if he hadn't FOLLOWED our terms of services and declared the two articles he was paid to create. When I have more time I will be back with further comments, but I hope you all realize that if you AFD articles on notable subjects by someone who created two disclosed paid articles, all you're going to do is ensure that no paid editor discloses, and that's actually doing more active harm to Wikipedia than before we got the damn TOS amendment on paid editing in place in the first place? @WWB, Keilana, and Floquenbeam: - please take a look at these if you have a chance and happen to have more time than I, because I'm in crunch time, but it's a horrible idea to AFD notable subjects written by someone who followed our terms of service by disclosing the two articles he was paid to write. What do you all posting here view as a better situation: people spending hundreds of hours tracking anonymous paid editing groups that take actions to avoid our detection, or someone who has written about legitimately notable subjects without payment following our TOS and disclosing what he was paid to do so they could receive extra scrutiny? This chain of actions is the best way possible to drive good actors off and increase the market for the six Wiki-PR or bigger groups I'm currently aware of. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page 01:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)"

I'm afraid that you're conflating different issues. This discussion is only about whether or not you are notable and your editing here is irrelevant. I've replied to Kevin at the COI noticeboard which is the place for that discussion. SmartSE (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Semartse: I'm just repsonding to the sentiment of much more experienced editors than myself and the comments made by some of the editors above. I would also add that I see numerous biographical articles that have been accepted that rely exclusively or almost exclusively on primary sources (and are tagged as such) and they seem to meet the notability guidelines and have not been proposed for deletion. It seems that you really have a strong desire to delete my page. It seems rather targeted and also coincidentally coincides with concerns about my editing history and it is fairly and perhaps blatantly obvious. I've done my best to be honest, fair and objective and respond to feedback. If you want to use this as an example to punish me and make an example out of me, there is not much I can do about it, but I do appreciate your consideration. ThanksJpop73 (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As clearly lacks notability for an article. Keep Just had a better look at the article. The comment below makes some good points actually. The article is actually well sourced and seems pretty neutral to me. Delete Yeah I'm being a little indecisive here, but the comments below bring up some points which I simply can't ignore. Upon further examination of the article I don't believe it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Also, I was unaware that the article was an autobiography. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 22:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Omni Flames, I see that you created an article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kat_Arney), which cites primary references, just like this article does, except for the fact that this article on me also includes secondary references for support. I was appointed to a courtesy faculty position, while your subject was a post-doc. Hence, I'm not sure how your subject is any more notable than the subject in this article. Some fairness would be greatly appreciated with regard to your critique.Jpop73 (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpop73: Actually, you're right. The article is pretty well sourced. I've changed my vote. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 05:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Omni Flames, Thank you for your kind note and consideration.Jpop73 (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: can you explain which sources made you change your mind so that WP:BIO is met? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the issue here is exactly what guideline is being used to suggest notability. I don't see enough academic work to meet WP:NACADEMIC, I'm not seeing enough evidence of peer recognition to meet WP:NJOURNALIST, so we're down to WP:BASIC. Are there enough in-depth secondary sources which have talked about him in depth? Not articles which quote him as a source. Not articles he has written. Not interviews. I don't think so. Delete. JMWt (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm not sure I understand why peer recognition in the journalism community is as critical as the publications in which an author contributes to. If you will do a search you will find examples of where my work has been reprinted and discussed by others. There seems to be a lot of examples of peer recognition of subjects with Wikipedia pages in publications, which are not noteworthy. I would even include some of my own in this case. With that said, I appreciate the assessment. It seems to be a fair account, although still subjective. More than anything, it seems that if Wikipedia editors want to delete someone, they will find a way to do it. That has been my learning experience. Thanks again for your time.Jpop73 (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are not policy based arguments. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really worth responding to. If you don't like the relevant notability guidelines, try changing them. JMWt (talk) 07:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited sources don't meet WP:GNG and I didn't find any other sources that would help to meet that standard. The piece in Cleveland Jewish News isn't enough on its own to meet GNG, and the other sources are either brief/insignificant mentions or pieces written by Schaul. I also don't see anything that meets a subject-specific notability guideline like WP:ACADEMIC or WP:JOURNALIST. WP:BLPSPS lists the circumstances under which self-published sources may be used in an article, but those sources don't help to establish notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of wp:notability asks if the topic has sufficiently attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time. It is not necessary for a topic to completely satisfy any one notability subguideline. No one can look at the coverage from around the world, and in multiple languages, and claim that this topic is a hoax or made up. WP:GNG is not intended to be a high bar for our encyclopedia, rather it is intended to be responsibly inclusive, and WP:GNG is satisfied here. However, we also have a requirement of WP:NOTPROMOTION, and Seaworld currently has an ongoing advertising campaign, and I noticed that this topic is part of some Seaworld controversy. Another way to go here is to invoke WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, which argues that 12 years in the public spotlight has not yet provided sufficient coverage over and above WP:GNG for this particular topic, as more than a statistic. This view is supported in the absence of WP:GNG coverage found at Google books. But is that a sufficient reason to prevent our readers from learning about this topic with the work and sourcing already in place? If anything, the question here is not if the topic will be covered, but when. Unscintillating (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating, can you point out where you see "coverage from around the world and in multiple languages"? My searches didn't turn that up. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 05:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect he/she was talking about the fact Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is the largest marine mammal dedidicated preservation organization in the world and offers coverage in multiple languages, including French. (like the press mentioned under the "Criticisms" section below in the article). ThanksJpop73 (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jpop73 As an editor with extreme COI (the author of the autobiography under discussion) I would expect you to recuse yourself from discussion about the page. Your view is well known, and repeating your arguments is frankly just making your COI more of an issue. Also, do not speak for others, please. Let us have the discussion amongst ourselves without inserting yourself into it. There is an actual decision to be made here relating to notability, which you appear to ignore, so your contributions are making our work here more difficult. Basically, at this point your presence here is disruptive. Please stop. LaMona (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, you will see "Zambia", "India", "Alaska", "California", and "Ohio". Your response that uses the word "extreme", and treats the content contributor with condescension, and adds a personal attack for providing technical support that you requested, suggests that your goal here is to throw a WP:STINKBOMB. Not my problem. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: There is a very large distinction between working in foreign countries and "sufficiently attracted the attention of the world". Are there any sources which confirm your assertion? SmartSE (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This "distinction" is yours. The intensifiers "very" and "large" are verbiage. I found various references to the topic by reviewing the article, and doing some of the checks identified in WP:BEFORE. Your efforts to comply with WP:BEFORE are something that you don't report in your deletion nomination. Hope that helps, Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: please just supply us with some links which back up your claim that there are "various references to the topic" which are not currently on this page and which are WP:RS, because frankly I can't find them. Just saying that such references exist is not actually helping this discussion. JMWt (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sorry. I'm just trying to be helpful and just feel a that there is such a strong bias to delete, precipitated by this being created by the subject. Again, I apologizeJpop73 (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this bothers you, don't assume that it gets better. People often decide that they don't want to have an article here, and with marginal notability such as your's, the BLP's request carries weight. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I worked closely with another editor over a period of time (cited above) to improve this article, which is one reason I am fairly invested in it. Excuse my naivete, but what do you mean when you say the "BLP's request carries weight."Jpop73 (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jpop73, Since I couldn't readily find a reference to better answer your question, I've posted at WT:Biographies of living persons/Help#Requests by the Topic to Delete a BLP. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, you've totally misunderstood what is happening here. Nobody is out to get you personally, there is no bias to delete your pet subject. The simple fact is that if there were no standards for inclusion, anyone could write anything and have it cluttering up wikipedia. Hence we have notability criteria and we have discussions where uninvolved editors in good faith review the subject and try to come to a consensus about whether the subject is sufficiently noted to warrant inclusion in this encyclopedia. And, in simple terms, that means that the subject has been covered in media that they've not written, that is substantial (ie not just mentions) and is reliable (ie not just a website of an organisation they work for, a blog, a self-published book etc). Unless you - or anyone else - and persuade the rest of us that the subject is covered in this kind of depth, the delete !votes have it. The fact that you think it is important isn't good enough. The fact that you've put a lot of effort into it, whilst unfortunate, has nothing to do with it. The notability standards are quite clear starting from WP:GNG, so I suggest you stop trying to persuade us that wikipedia is wrong to have these standards (which is beyond the scope of the discussion here) and start making an argument based on coverage in secondary sources. If you can't do that, then you are tacitly admitting, as a main editor of the page, that the subject is not notable. JMWt (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm sorry if I sound like I'm trying to pursuade anyone about how I think Wikipedia should function. I'm not and that is not my interest. I'm just observing and responding to mixed reactions and much apparent subjectivity regarding the meeting of notability requirements. As far as notability regarding my article is concerned, my only reference or basis for reference is from what other editors have stated. I've been advised not to share an opinion because it would be a conflict of interest. There seems to be disagreement on whether it is notable, while some have called it "borderline" and others "marginally notable," others have said it is within the criteria of notability. I even received comments via email. Hence, notability seems fairly subjective here on Wikipedia whether there are guidelines in place or not.

In addition, I am still a little confused a bit on how something passes the initial review, gets frequently updated by editors and then is suddenly proposed for deletion. That indicates to me that the review process is inconsistent or this delayed deletion process is inconsistent. It also tells me that every editor seems to have their own opinion and there are numerous disparities, not to mention unusual events that precipitate proposing several articles that had been published for some time, suddenly find themselves proposed for deletion. Some of the subjects I have created profiles for or edited had the same questions because they find their articles in the same predicament as mine and find it suspicious that these AFD tags have all suddenly been placed this week. I do appreciate your effort to explain and for doing it with courtesy. thanksJpop73 (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 07:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree. It isn't subjective, the standards needed by the WP:GNG are very clear, so anyone !voting keep without reference to the policies and guidelines is ignored. Where there is legitimate disagreement in deletion discussions is to the level of coverage and whether the secondary sources meet the high bar of significant. That's not relevant here, because you've not offered any significant secondary sources at all. So those who are making those votes to you here or by email seem to be objectively wrong.

I can't speak to your second point. I can only speak from experience of deletion discussions, and in my opinion this article does not meet the WP:GNG for obvious reasons I've outlined above. Others who are disagreeing are not arguing from any notability guideline.

The whole COI issue is not one I know much about however it seems to me that it is problematic that (a) you've admitted to writing these articles for payment (which would suggest that you've got a material interest in trying to keep them on wikipedia) and (b) that you're insisting on calling them "my articles". They're not yours. This is a team-situation, any edits you offer belong to the agreed whole of this encyclopedia as established by long consensus. If you want complete control over material that is "out there" then you're looking to write your own blog, website, wiki etc, not contribute to something which is assessed and reviewed by the crowd and guided by precedent. At the very essence of this thing is that wikipedia is reflecting not estabishing the notability of the subjects of pages. It is down to you as an editor to show that the subject is notable. If you can't, then get ready for them to be deleted, whether or not you were paid to write them. JMWt (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I don't see a list of secondary sources of significance to choose from. It is arbitrary and up to the discretion of the editor, which to me means it is subjective. But that is beside the point. One of the editors who recommended keeping the article (see above) clearly indicates a difference of opinion with regard to how the WP:GNG is interpreted. And that is just a difference of interpretation on my page, which illustrates how rampant the problem must be. I'm not trying to be difficult. It is just that you only have to read the commentary above from User:Unscintillating to see how editors interpret policy differently.

If you can't speak to the second point, it would seem that every single article that has been reviewed, accepted and published should be heavily scrutinized and critiqued and perhaps proposed for deletion as mine and those I have created have been. That would be fair if you want to talk about fairness and standards. Until that happens, I think that my article and the others I have created should be left as they were, otherwise I would consider this a fairly discriminatory action and a targeted campaign as one of the editors mentioned on the COI discussion page. There is plenty of conjecture on the internet about editorial bias among the community of Wikipedia contributors/editors/adminsitrators, etc. I don't know how much of it is true or not nor is it my businsess. I just know that if you are going to be hyper-critical of certain articles, it would only seem fair that you use the same treatment on others. Furthermore, why didn't any of the editors bring this to my attention when they reviewed and worked on my article and others I've created. Do they have a different set of criteria then the deletion team? They obviously didn't see issues with the profile at the time. Now all of the sudden there is this concerted effort to delete my page and others I've created. It may be the Wikipedia way, but it certainly is neither fair or objective. The amount of time and energy spent concerning whether or not my secondary sources are significant enough for a loosely set criterion, when hundreds, if not thousands of articles are missing secondary or even significant primary sources is rather remarkable. The subjects of the articles that I created, which you have proposed for deletion have given me enough feedback beyond my own research to indicate that this is a subjective critique and fairly targeted. I'm not trying to over-emphasize, it is just strikingly apparent.Jpop73 (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this discussion is going way beyond this AfD and into the whole business of notability. The first stop in understanding that is the WP:GNG and if you're not able to identify which sources are considered to be WP:RS then there are other fora where you should be reading and discussing that point, not here. The fact that someone has recommended keep is not any of my business. Personally I cannot see how they can possibly make that assessment given that the reliable secondary sources that we usually would look for (extended newspaper articles, books, academic sources) do not appear to exist and you don't appear to be arguing do exist. So, according to you, we are left using websites which you again appear to be admitting are not actually independent of the subject, and therefore are not really very useful in determining notability - as is obvious, any organisation thinks their own staff are important. That doesn't mean they actually are important with respect to a wide-ranging encyclopedia.

If you think that you are being discriminated against, then you should refer the matter to WP:ANI and not attempt to make the case here.

The conjecture about bias of wikipedia is irrelevant to this discussion. We're very clearly talking about the notability of these articles and are clearly trying to assess them against the established guidelines.

The reviewers of your draft is not relevant to this discussion, if you want to talk about that, you should go to WP:AFCHD. We are here only talking about the notability of this page as it is presented to us here. How it got here is not really of any importance to me.

Finally, I have not proposed any of "your" articles for deletion, I am just part of this community of editors who review articles against deletion criteria. And whether or not you think you have enough information from the subjects of the articles is not relevant to this discussion. Once again, I suggest you restrict your comments here to the point as to whether you have sufficient WP:RS to show notability as per the WP:GNG and address your other issues elsewhere. JMWt (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jpop73, you have just accused us as being biased and unfair, and yet you do not seem to be well-informed on the actual policies being discussed. If you were, you were be able to argue your case better. There are criteria for how one defines "reliable source". These criteria do not result in an entirely black and white world, but like most human endeavors they provide a basis for discussion. I suggest that you discuss from a stronger position if you show yourself to be "well read" in the policies. Start with wp:rs which defines reliable sources. Then you can look at Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples, and we can compare sources in this article to the definition and those examples. Then we have the Wikipedia:Reliable sources checklist, which is an essay but which is handy because it has a list of questions that need to be answered. Next, I think we need to example the sources here, and any other sources that people find, and analyze them based on this criteria. This AfD has been so far imprecise in its analysis, which is one of the reasons why we may be making very little headway. I'll initiate that next - it may take a while. LaMona (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpop73: Regarding your mentions of the article being reviewed previously, the current article has never been through a formal review process such as Articles for creation. Some other editors made edits to remove some of the more egregious content but that doesn't mean it passed any kind of review. As you know, this discussion was already held in 2010 when an account that you have said you edited from commented several times [11]. That formally determined that in the community's eyes the subject was not notable and it was deleted. It was then recreated twice again that year after which an admin prevented it from being recreated again. When you recreated in 2013, you did so at Jordan schaul and an admin moved it, presumably without realising the history of the article (our software wouldn't tell them that most users couldn't create it). I'm sorry that you feel we are unfair and biased but when I come across problematic articles I deal with them - yes there are many more out there but it would only be even worse if we didn't delete articles. SmartSE (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources This only covers the sources in the article. Obviously anyone is welcome to provide others.
1. Newspaper article: Cleveland Jewish News. Independent. Substantial. Assumed reliable, reputation unknown.
2. College Alumni news. RS? Not known who wrote or where info came from.
3. College newsletter. In its entirety: "We also had three of our graduate students begin their veterinary program in the O Medicine: Einav Elistsur (Dr. Saville, advisor), Aaron Ison (Dr. Morishita, advisor), and Jordan Schaul (Dr. Morishita, advisor)." Name check. Fails WP:N: topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
4. Bio at National Geographic (employer) Unknown author; not independent of subject
5. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
6. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
7. No mention of Schaul on page
8. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
9. Own CV; not an independent source
10. Another CV; own work; not an independent source
11. One sentence quote; not substantial, not third-party
12 A newsletter with his name on masthead; not substantial
13. dead link
14. dead link
15. Web site for an organization; Schaul not mentioned
16.Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
17. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
18. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
19. Bio at thedodo.com; relationship unclear; author unclear
20. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
21. Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
22. List of own work at moderncat.com
23. Bio at HuffPost and list of works
24. dead link
25.Own work, not a third-party source "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources"
26. One mention: "After much coordination, in mid-June FedEx flew Taquka, Mendive, and Taquka’s handler, Dr. Jordan Schaul, to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York." Factual, but not substantially about him.
27. dead link; search on name at site gets zero
28. Response to a blog post by Schaul; argues the topic, very little about Schaul
29. Response to an article or post by him. Quotes him; possibly substantial.
30. Mention in article about Seaworld. In its entirety: " Conservationist Dr. Jordan Schaul argues that it would be ‘negligent’ to release captive whales. Their immune systems would not cope with the ‘degraded conditions’ of the ocean. SeaWorld is clean; the ocean is dirty."

LaMona (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for that LaMona. Regarding #1, which is probably the best source for use in meeting WP:BIO, Cleveland Jewish News is "a weekly Jewish newspaper headquartered in Beachwood, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland" that according to their website has a print circulation of only 8,000. I think there's generally a consensus that while local newspapers are fine as RS, they're not great for conferring notability because they cover so many obviously non-notable topics. SmartSE (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sufficient sources to support notability. LaMona (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in the article looks like it would confer inherent notability; in particular, the OC Zoo is pretty minor as zoos go, so even if his position there was the head of the zoo (I can't tell from the title and there is no sourcing for more than the title) it wouldn't be enough by itself. Therefore, we need to rely on WP:GNG, but as LaMona's careful analysis makes clear, we don't have enough reliable in-depth independent coverage of him (only one local newspaper) to pass that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it feels to me that we're flogging a dead horse here unless someone can show references exist that are not currently on the page. As LaMona shows above, only one of the current references could even vaguely be a RS, and that arguably doesn't speak to notability because of the localised nature of the publication. Even if it did, that's just one reference. I really could be persuaded to change my !vote if there was something substantial to add to this discussion, but all of my searches are entirely fruitless. The guy wrote a bunch of articles and blogs, he is listed on a few websites - mostly of places where he was employed, and a few other people rate him. None of those are enough, IMO. JMWt (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with the above, and in particular with the source evluation by LaMona. I see no evidence of it passing WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment jpop73 might want to read WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. poor quality sources. LibStar (talk) 09:16, 22 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 Deleted (G5) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadan (2016 film)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The sole reference in the article does not contain the word "Nadan". SSTflyer 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 10:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SSTflyer 10:23, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code 8 (2017 film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. The movie has yet to enter principle photography; per WP:FFILM, such articles should not have articles, and I don't think there's enough reliable, secondary sources to make an exception. JudgeRM 17:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The associated short film could potentially be notable and merit an article (has some level of secondary sources, possibly not enough), but the feature length film itself has yet to enter principle photography as per nom, thus fails WP:NFF crh23 (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC) With the significant re-writing of the article, my original argument no longer stands, so I have retracted it. I may come back and judge the new article if I have the time. Good work those who rewrote it! — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts"

(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)

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

Comment: Just my thoughts based upon past situations, but as the 2016 short film has been created and released, an article might be possible on it which can then be merged to an article on the 2017 film when it begins filming and has coverage... just as was done for the short teaser film Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse when it became part of This Is the End. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree from the comment above! Trying to change the page to Code 8 (2016 short film) with {{DISPLAYTITLE:desired title:Code 8 (2016 short film)}}, but was not being able to. User:Spartacus905 02:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THAT is something that will be done after this discussion is closed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alright, so what are the next steps? User:Spartacus905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus905 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the page has details, development, history, and most importantly, references. User:Spartacus905 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartacus905 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this seems convincing to keep. Delete as none of this actually suggests solid better satisfying the films notability, unlikely to have any considerable improvements anytime soon. SwisterTwister talk 02:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST and WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently, not a single reference from a RS. Searches did not turn up enough to show it passes WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this newsblog source from Entertainment Tonight and this source from Deadline were present in the article before your !vote above (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I should have been more specific, assuming the et blog is reliable (wp:newsblog only says they may be considered reliable, and should be used with caution), I should have said that the article only had 2 reliable sources, one of which, being an interview, was invalid to show notability as per WP:PRIMARY. I don't know how I mis-interpreted the Deadline source, I know I looked at it (the hyperlink is the different color after you click on it).

~~Delete~~ (switching to neutral-leaning-weak-delete, see below) -- WP:TOOSOON per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON is an opinion essay, not a guideline or policy. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As with many essays, it's a shortcut and implicates a particular dimension of policies/guidelines. It's lazy, admittedly, but can be assumed to imply WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:GNG, and/or other elements of WP:NOT or subject-specific notability criteria (in this case WP:NFF). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Code 8, as suggested above by MichaelQSchmidt and Spartacus905 – The short film meets WP:GNG. The expanded film does not appear to have commenced filming yet (WP:NFF), but has received some significant coverage in reliable sources. These sources were found by using the Find sources template atop this nomination page. Since the short film meets notability guidelines, content about the expected expanded version can be included in this article, because the expected expanded version is based upon the short. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

As I understand it, it's not a short film but a teaser trailer to get backers. It's a weird scenario, to be sure, because that means that while I don't think we should have a separate article on the trailer, there's a question of whether it could be argued that principal photography has technically begun. (i.e. productions don't usually start filming a little bit, then get funding, then resume filming the rest of it). To me, I think we should not have an article on a teaser. With This is the End, as I understand, Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse wasn't originally conceived as a trailer for a longer film -- it was conceived to have the format of a trailer but just to be a short film (which was then adapted into a movie). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources refer to it as a short film (e.g. [12], [13], [14]). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have the same link repeated there -- did you mean to include a third? I did look through them, though. I note that Deadline does talk about it as a short, but the Gizmodo article says "turns out that the short film was just a teaser for a much larger project" and links to their initial post about it, which starts "A short, intriguing teaser for a film called Code 8 just hit the web". So you're right that it's not entirely clear-cut, but it seems like it should be treated as a trailer. That said, I certainly have no objection to draftifying/userfying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The associated short film could potentially be notable and merit an article (has some level of secondary sources, possibly not enough), but the feature length film itself has yet to enter principle photography as per nom, thus fails WP:NFF Daniel Kenneth (talk) 10:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Delete this film hasn't been released yet, so I agree with the logic of WP:TOOSOON. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as User:MichaelQSchmidt already said above: the short film already exists. I think that's already enough to warrant the article as the notability is clearly given - I don't think that I need to list all of the international news reports on it (simply too many; there are even some from a month ago [15]). There's no good argument for deleting the article (just to recreate it later on) but the count of people that voted for it here. --Fixuture (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep title now as a redirect... now that my concerns over the planned film "Code 8 (2017 film)" have been addressed and the article NOW concentrates on the sourcable filmed and released "Code 8 (2016 film)" through content and multiple sources. And since it does not merit its own article until its filming begins, information on the planed 2017 film can always be written of and sourced at Code 8#Planned feature film. And in pinging JudgeRM, Crh23, Onel5969, Spartacus905, Daniel kenneth, ThePlatypusofDoom, Rhododendrites, Northamerica1000, SwisterTwister, and Fixuture... to summarize: While it was simply TOO SOON for "Code 8 (2017 film)", the current article on short film Code 8 meets WP:NF. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Code 8. The short film, as it appears, does in fact meet WP:NF. As such, the article should stay about the short film, not the feature film, until such feature film is made and released. JudgeRM 18:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Just as in the examples I offered way above, plans for making a feature can be spoken of in the article about the short and if (or when) the feature is made, it might have its own article. This can be determined next year. Thank you for swaying your original stance. Y. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've struck my delete vote, not because I think it should be kept but because it's sufficiently ambiguous that it needs more careful consideration than I can give it right now. If I were forced to choose, I'd still be delete, however, because this is not meant as a stand-alone short film. It's a teaser trailer to get funding for the full version. The question is, could it be said that principal photography has begun in order to create the "short", or should it be treated like any other promo for something that does not yet exist. Ultimately, it comes down to: if this movie is never made, do we want to treat a trailer for it as notable? I'm not so sure... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it's not a teaser trailer but a short film that's also a teaser promo for a full-length film. Also as it stands now the whole thing already is notable - no matter whether or not it is done (note that in the case that it's not done the article should contain the [notable] info about how such a large funding campaign failed). Btw. the film didn't just get so much attention for its quality etc. but also for being a crowdfunded film. --Fixuture (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Length is not the deciding factor... coverage is... just as Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse had coverage enough long before This Is the End became a film. And while most trailers fail our inclusion standards... some very few do meet them. And too, that same determination applies to any short film that eventually is made into a feature... coverage. Having watched it I am quite impressed by its quality and the fact that it gained over four times the funding wished and they now have the funds to make a truly awesome film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be directed at me, but I've never said length has anything to do with it. As I said above "Jay and Seth versus the Apocalypse wasn't originally conceived as a trailer for a longer film -- it was conceived to have the format of a trailer but just to be a short film (which was then adapted into a movie)". Here we have a teaser trailer in the format of a short film. That distinction matters. In general I agree the film has gotten some attention, the crowdfunding has been a success, etc. and that's why I struck my delete !vote. But I'm torn, because if it wouldn't be appropriate for us to have an article about a movie that has not begun principal photography with this degree of sourcing, I don't know that it's appropriate to keep this one. I feel like we're both repeating ourselves, though, so as I don't have any new perspective to offer on this, I'll probably leave it at that. This certainly looks like it's going to be kept now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teaser trailers are usually only 30 to 90 seconds in length, and oncerns about the earlier version article about an unmade 2017 film can be forgotten. We need now simply treat this well-covered ten minute short film on its own merits just as we might any other short. Guideline instructs that if a film (short or feature) has coverage to meet WP:NF, no matter how good or bad the short may be, we can have an article. And since it is possible the feature may never be made, for the released short the deciding factor is coverage. Simple. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I now change my vote to keep I saw that the article is now very good and also the short film now exists and it has over a million views. I would also like to say that the short film really is like a trailer. The article satisfies general notability guidelines. There is an article here that pretty much proves why this code 8 article is notable and that is because it has been discussed by an author in gizmodo and his name is Andrew Liptak. I would consider the linked article to be reliable because it is a secondary source. Daniel Kenneth (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer – The article was moved to Code 8 (by another user). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He probably should have waited, but the deed is done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: To meet WP:GNG and WP:NF, and even though not all are being used (not a mandate), we have multiple more-than-trivial coverages which address the topic directly and in detail. IE: International Business Times, Inquisitr. Entertainment Weekly, I09, Comicbook.com, MoviesRoom (Poland). Coming Soon, Crowdfund Insider, Deadline, Da Endgadet (German), Journal Du Geek (French), Observatorio Do Cinema (Portuguese), Sensacine (Spanish), Tomatazos (Spanish), and more... Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:44, 20 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. After discounting the confirmed sockpuppets and SPAs, the consensus is clearly to delete, particularly considering the comments of those who examined the sources in depth. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shamit Khemka[edit]

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

nn entrepreneur. With rge exception of arrest for hate speech I don't see significant independent coverage in sources cited. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 04:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article actually contains no better signs of a better notable Wikipedia article, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed sock !vote ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is biography of an Indian entrepreneur who is popular for his startups and involvement in global organization like EO. The article has been supported by many genuine resources published by popular magazines and news websites, viz. Business Standard, Zee News India, Forbes India Magazine. Mridu 09:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)
- Note- New account. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for Altenmann - Neither my account is new and nor the references for this article are weak. With your desperate ways on this page, it seems that you are expecting a loss if the page does not get deleted.Mridu 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
  - Note for Mridu -- see Psychological projection and The pot calling the kettle black. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good & bad both portions of the article, as they are supported by substantial references and seems informative enough to qualify for the biography, the hate speech portion can although be blended within the "Personal Life" section or the paragraph heading can be changed to "Controversies", it is best to avoid rude words within the wiki articles.Kermazov (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note- New account. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strong sourcing. No reason to delete. AusLondonder (talk) 02:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases and other PR stuff is not "strong sources". - üser:Altenmann >t 07:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are confusing News sites and reputable magazines with PR. - Mridu 10:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
    - No I am not. PR is peddled thru news sites and magazines. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You think a PR has been peddled through all the news sites over the world including The New York Times, Business Standard, Times City, Zee News, The Telegraph, India Today and Forbes and over the years? Won't that make it a valid and solid news story?Mridu 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed sock !vote ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Solid references, no need to delete. It seems to me as a planned approach to have this page deleted, while a new user Passport2016 added the hate speech controversy and after 2 days, Altenmann nominates the page to delete. Unfortunately, many agencies nowadays offer paid services to mess-up wikipedia entries. The sourcing of this article comes from The New York Times, Business Standard, Times City, Zee News, The Telegraph, India Today and Forbes. A cheap PR cannot be sold to these many reputable news agencies. Esparami (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a SPA, or possibly a sleeper sock popped up suddenly. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the user SwisterTwister is the only one who has supported you and by checking his contributions, it seems that you have been knowing each other from the past, and the support seems more like a favor. Mridu 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete, and by the way, Mridusinha, you're an advertising SPA, and your keep seems more like promotion. The sources, with the exception of the hate speech incident (which, note, is the only thing referenced to the New York Times) are miserable. Esparami, your claim that "many agencies nowadays offer paid services to mess-up wikipedia entries" makes no sense. Why should they — who would pay for it? To the contrary, many agencies offer paid services to create and to puff up wikipedia entries such as this one. See also the apparently related, even more miserably sourced International Chandramauli Charitable Trust, which I've just prodded. Bishonen | talk 14:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources with significant coverage are available for this person (other than the hate speech incident), for instance, [16], [17], [18], etc.. And a ton of trivial coverage on this person makes me think this person is indeed notable—UY Scuti ^Talk 21:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first ref is PR puffery without author, 2 and 3 is just citing Klemka, i.e, again promotion. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are either trivial mentions, quoting the subject, or outright PR. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed sock !vote ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not sure why references from The Telegraph, The new york times, the indian express, Business Standard and Forbes are being considered low by the other editors. The article seems pretty strongly sourced whether for good or for bad information about Khemka, but yes it is solid. Desertedtense (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the above is the very first edit ever by the account Desertedtense. May I ask how you found this discussion? Bishonen | talk 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - looking at some of the sources, they check out! Bearian (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed socking comments ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I have filed an SPI concerning Mridusinha, Kermazov, Esparami, and Desertedtense. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
- Bishonen, you are just being desperate. Just seen your contribution history, seems like you are infamous for blocking users' accounts and deleting their pages, rather than to have any actual contribution on the wikipedia. Mridu 04:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)
- And it seems that you have been blocked 3 times for your notorious activities. Mridu 04:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)
- Edits made by you in past 7 days is 1 and edits made by you in past 30 days is 4 as appearing [[19]], seems like your sole purpose of logging into wikipedia these days in to delete khemka's and all related pages and report supporting editors. Mridu 05:09, 13 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mridusinha (talk • contribs)

The above rant and continuous accusations that everyone else is working for a company that's trying to mess up Wikipedia for money has me really inclined to go WP:DUCK on the SPI filed by Bishonen. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And per

this and this, it is safe to conclude that Mridusinha does indeed work for SynapseIndia, and may well be Shamit Khemka himself. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sock users should be blocked, however the page seems to be notable and hence can be kept.Desertedtense (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - nonnotable businessman. no significant coverage of the person beyond clearly promotional material. Claims to notability are leadership of several nonnotable orgs, including one with article I am about to file for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable ; the references in general have the unmistakable ring of press releases, and press releases they are, no matter where they were published. The nature of Indian newspapers at this point with respect to articles on business,entrepreneurs, professional workers, films, books,and all other topics susceptible to promotion makes them unreliable sources. If we are to include articles on subjects in these fields, we need sources which show clear accomplishments that would obviously justify an article. Such accomplishments are not present here--the size of his enterprises does no give rise to an assumption that they would be good sources, and his other activities likewise. I find this an extremely regrettable situation, but if there are no good sources for an area, what else can we do? DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: re-opening this AfD Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have filleted the article of all but the sourced material; my edit summary sums it up. ~~I think it is probably 'keepable' by now; but that of course is for the community to decide.~~ _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have struck my comment as am forced to agree with the above. My fillet knife was obviously knot sharp enough but a clincher is that it is untrustworthy. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Going over the sources in the article as of when I started this post (sources removed by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi are marked with an ^), we have obvious PR pieces and advertisements which fail WP:RS ([20], [21], [22], [23]), affiliated sources which fail the "independent" part of WP:GNG ([24], [25], [26]^, [27]^), single mentions which fail the "significant coverage" part of WP:GNG ([28], [29], [30], [31]^), sources on the hate speech arrest which fail WP:1E ([32], [33], [34], [35], [36]). That's it. Nothing else. Pretending for a moment this meets WP:GNG, there's still severe WP:UNDUE focus on his business when his presence in sources is more about the hate speech website. Whether or not any of his companies is notable does not matter.

@AusLondonder: please tell me how this is "strong sourcing." @Bearian: Please check out WP:PR and WP:1E; the few sources that approach "checking out" do not meet WP:GNG.

Also, besides the fact that the subject is not notable, the article was largely written by an editor who has acted in bad faith by lying about a clear conflict of interest and sockpuppeting. Given that conflict of interest, this article can only be intended as a promotional piece, which is not what this site is for. While any editor's behavior does not justify deletion, given that the article does not meet GNG, the behavior points toward WP:NUKEANDPAVE. If someone else finds legitimate sources that truly do indicate that the subject is notable, it's totally cool to bang out a stub two seconds after the page is deleted. But I do not think we should reward Mridusinha's greedy dishonesty by letting him host such a flimsily written puff-piece for himself or his boss (whatever his relationship is). Ian.thomson (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete They exist, they've had a career. So has everyone. Why is this one notable? Even the racism aspect seems too minor to put them in an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability up to our standards. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - there are good sources, but an argument has been made that WP:1E applies. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 20 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 Deleted (G5) by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Za pagal yam[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no sources; the Express Tribune source appears to be about a different film entirely. McGeddon (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as backed by nothing more than a fake source. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

filmmaker:(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)

WP:INDAFD: Za Pagal Yam Syed Muntazim Shah Shahzeb Khan Shahid Khan Sehar Malik M. Hussain Swati Umar Daraz Tariq Jamal

Delete per currently failing WP:NF. While the film seemsto exist and some of its purported cast and crew can be sourced, and there is nothing found about this film in reliable sources. If or when that changes the topic can always be revisited. I strongly urge that the author spend time at WP:PRIMER and that he studies the criteria set by WP:NF and build his articles in a sandbox. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:35, 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 (NAC). Although the subject does not meet WP:CRIC, the argument that he meets GNG due to the sources provided are convincing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niall McDonnell[edit]

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

Not played International level cricket or any first-class game. GreenCricket (talk) 07:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - he may not satisfy WP:CRIC, as he hasn't played at the highest levels, but I wonder if he satisfied WP:GNG. I'm seeing him as the main subject of a few newspaper articles and on the BBC.[37][38][39] I'm probably a weak keep here. — Amakuru (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Fails WP:CRIN, but has quite a bit of independent coverage explicitly about him ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44]), which is sufficient (barely) to pass WP:GNG. — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 08:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per User:Crh23's convincing evidence. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but not confidently as I still question this but the coverage may be enough to at least somewhat improve this for now. I would certainly consider reviewing for attention again soon though, SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 23 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" 16:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Tooze[edit]

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

Non-notable poet, fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE JMHamo (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - He is a notable poet. He's impacted on many people's lives and has wrote and sold many of his poems or whatever you call them books. There's loads of sources and references on his page too.Thursby16 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails to meet any notability criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Article as written does not meet WP:CREATIVE for poets. The article might fare better if he was recast as an educator. None of the references talk about how great his poetry is, but a lot of them talk about his workshops and how many kids they've influenced. But I'm not even sure of that: there are a lot of non-notable people who give workshops for children and can probably dig up as many local references saying they did a workshop. It's not really a testament to notability until he gets some national notice for it. ubiquity (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you edit it so it say that then please?Thursby16 (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because, as I said, I'm not really convinced that that makes him notable either. ubiquity (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does a lot of good work in schools, inspiring children, but this doesn't make him notable (if it did, thousands of teachers would also qualify). He doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE in respect of his poetry at the moment. Neiltonks (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, no, he does not meet GNG, and does not meet WP:CREATIVE. All of the information here is heartfelt stories of him teaching children, and they are brief stories with photographs that do not say much about him. The remainder is name checks. In addition, the recognition is quite locally limited. What is entirely missing (and I could not find in my searches) are any reviews of his poetry. There may be poetry magazines that aren't easily accessible that have these, but I can't base my !vote on what may exist. LaMona (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this clearly has no context for any notability such as WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 22 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 selective merge to Albertville, Minnesota.—S Marshall T/C 16:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Church of St. Albert (Albertville, Minnesota)[edit]

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

non notable congregation or building John from Idegon (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 09:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge Condense to a sentence or two and merge to Albertville, Minnesota, it is a large congregation with its 1906 Goth revival building still standing (and probably eligible for state historic designation). I searched, and, like Nom, did not find sourcing to support a free-standing article. Creator is a new editor, article was created in good faith, and the information is sufficiently significant that it merits space on the Albertville page. Also, because User:Olaf9999 is a new editor the best way to welcome him to wikipedia is to help him create a good, brief description of this large congregation and it's historic church on the Albertville page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per reasons above. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 20:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or briefly merge. It looks to me like a fairly typical NN local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does "NN" mean?DThomsen8 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wiki-shorthand for "non-notable". Mz7 (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per reasons above, and add redirects.--DThomsen8 (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mention briefly at the local community then Redirect, clearly not yet independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Dee Robinson[edit]

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

Spam of a non-notable person by a series of COI editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one time beauty contestant with only a single role in a soap opera, it could pass despite not assert other notability. If all else fails, I'd say this article is as good as purged considering it's been created by a COI editor or at least this will set an example to what happen to paid editing. I would not object to a recreation though. Donnie Park (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per sourcing, per WP:GNG. Beauty queen and a role in a soap opera is notable.BabbaQ (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mention here and in-depth here, as soap opera star I assume there's much more stuff on her, will stop searching.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer - I'm unsure if "sheknows.com" is a reliable source. It appears that articles are written by "the community". That would usually put the site in the same category as HuffPost where articles are judged on the reputation of the individual authors. I don't find anything at the RS Noticeboard about it, so it's a judgment call here. There is no info on the site about the author of the article (which is billed as an interview). I'm skeptical that it is RS. LaMona (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Nat Geo source is a blog that doesn't appear to have editorial control (i.e. not a WP:NEWSBLOG) and was written by Robinson's colleague. Independence is definitely questionable and as you elude to yourself, this was only an extremely brief mention. SmartSE (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NACTOR for multiple television roles, also beauty queen as an extra consideration, article can be rewritten if need be for neutrality.Atlantic306 (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per BabbaQ and Tomwsulcer. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any reliable sources about her (if others can find them, I can reconsider, but my search failed). The references in the article are her own show and one deadlink to TV Guide, which probably wouldn't have provided much anyway. So this appears to fail GNG, needing at least a some third-party, reliable sources that are substantially about her. LaMona (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply still not convincing and, perhaps too soon because of it, for any solid convincing signs of better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 04:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets WP:GNG. Could use clean-up to minimize promotional tone, not deletion. Hmlarson (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Coment to keepers She may have legitimately won a beauty contest or appeared in a soap opera but the problem you all seem to ignore is the quality of the sources or lack of. This is what you are ignoring. Donnie Park (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: GNG doesn't require that the article be particularly well-written, it only requires adequate indicia of notability. That's met. We have dozens of pornstar articles with less notability than this. Soaps aren't Oscar territory, but it's enough. Montanabw ^(talk) 22:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the subject crosses the verifiability and notability threshold. Searches may be complicated by the fact that in her professional career she has been credited as "Sandra Ferguson", "Sandra Reinhardt", "Sandra Ferguson Reinhardt", "Sandra Robinson", and "Sandra Dee Robinson" (and other variants). Eight years as a major player on a network soap opera plus long recurring roles on several others drew sufficient press notice to meet the standards and I've added a few of these sources to the article. - Dravecky (talk) 07:13, 21 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" 18:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UDTP[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a new networking protocol. I am unable to find any reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than some unfortunate spurious matches (such as UDTP=Unfair Deceptive Trade Practices), there's little out there. There are a few minor references to IPv17 (which is also up for deletion), but that's it. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, @MrX: IIRC there is (or should be) a feature to bundle closely related AfDs into one AfD. –Be..anyone 💩 04:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above, not able to locate evidence of this suposed networking protocol at the Cisco site or industry sites or at government sites. Prhartcom (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. Non-notable protocol. Not an accepted standard. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:56, 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. sufficient consensus. Can be re-created in Draft if more information is found. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Centre for Social Studies[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Copyvio problem resolved, but I realized that this article might be sent to AfD here. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost should've been speedily deleted under A7. Non-notable organization which has no sources to assert it's notability. As per nom. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is clearly an active charitable organisation and I had expected to find at least some reflection of this organisation via Guardian, Highbeam, Google searches but didn't. Unless something can be located, fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Tot[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Searches come up blank, only social media accounts. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't read Serbian or Hungarian, so I suppose there could be hidden sources, but I found nothing to suggest that. The phrase "he is well recognized for his patented aggression and his revolutionary style of playing" is a pretty big red flag, here. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 22 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 01:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPv17[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a new networking protocol. I am unable to find any reliable sources about the subject. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 00:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is much too soon for an article. It's not a new internet protocol version supported by an international body; it's a new commercial product in the fundraising stage. See here. There seem to be no sources independent of the company as yet. StarryGrandma (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising cruft. No notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and above. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing out there other than promotional stuff. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability yet, any speculation that it will be implemented ever is just that and violates WP:CRYSTAL. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 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. Sandstein 14:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Front for Independence of Oromia[edit]

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

~~This article is like Islamic Front for the Liberation of Oromia Greek Legend (talk) 09:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to convince keeping this exact article, even the information suggests nothing better is available ("active since 2015"). SwisterTwister talk 04:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. SSTflyer 07:37, 22 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 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Sáez-Merino, Jr.[edit]

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

Racing driver that does not meet the WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria. The only source is a database site, which is not considered enough to establish notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. QueenCake (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable and nothing suggests there's better career information. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. SSTflyer 07:38, 22 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 Alone Yet Not Alone. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alone Yet Not Alone (song)[edit]

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

This article partially copies the parent article, Alone Yet Not Alone. Also, despite reliable sources on copied content, I'm unsure whether this meets WP:NSONGS or WP:notability. I would propose a merger or converting the page into a redirect if it's not a copycat. However, the page may be not worth keeping as any type. George Ho (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - this should be merged with Alone Yet Not Alone since it is not notable on its own as there are no WP:RS to establish notability as per WP:NSONGS. DarthVader (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect as mentioned, not independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 22 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 14:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukari Taki[edit]

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

Unsourced biography, ineligible for BLPPROD because of unreliable sources which were removed by another editor, did not see reliable sources which did more than a credit listing for this actress. Additional sources welcomed, particularly because of potential language searching issues. joe decker ^talk 16:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as certainly still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sourcing and no demonstration of notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:01, 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. Uncontested, despite the nominator now being blocked. Sandstein 14:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piramid LGBT Diyarbakir Initiative[edit]

Sources on article is not reliable. Blogspot is an not reliable source and sources maybe self-published. Article was created by unknown user. Article nominated for deletion. Vietkingo 17:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 April 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Sources is not reliable. Vietkingo 20:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*You do not get to !vote delete on your own Afd. Your deletion rationale above suffices. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article was not created by an "unknown user," whatever that means. Moreover, I'm puzzled by the nominator's behaviour, among other things, creating this Afd, attempting to twice !vote delete, but then canvassing an editor to help "prevent" deletion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mean user has limited contributions. See the user's page. İn reality, there is no LGBT members or presence in Diyarbakır. Vietkingo 20:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator will I suspect be blocked rather shortly, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sedej. Also, see WP:Competence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are fictitious references. Two sources which are in the Sources section are not working at all, dead links. The first source which is used in the leading section is Blogspot blog. Also the third source isn't looking as reliable source or enough to show that article is notable. Bianet is like Liveleaks, anyone could write anything they like. No enough independent sources. Two issues here, using Blogspot which is against WP:RS and not enough third party sources for statements and the whole article, which makes it against WP:3PARTY. Also, not enough sources to verify WP:NOTE. Ferakp (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all actually suggesting independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nominator is banned multi account usser, we need closse this.Shadow4dark (talk) 12:20, 22 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 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mazochi[edit]

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

Seemingly NN musician at this point. The only claim to any notability is possibly WP:MUSIC #10, but none of them a theme, rather played during the shows and the LA Music award probably doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC #8 - it's a minor award. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also WP:Promotion. QueenCake (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I waited to comment but I will say Delete now because simply none of this actually suggests the better signs of notability and improvements to comfortably keep. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 22 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 Primorial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compositorial[edit]

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

Not notable. The prod tag was previously replaced with a merge tag, and the merge to Composite number completed, but the merge was undone. 96.41.0.15 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a small section or just a paragraph in Primorial. Since the merge and undoing, I added a couple of references for verifiability. The topic is not close to notable, so should be merged. Compositorial is contrasted with primorial in some sources; the compositorial and primorial are complementary sets of the total factorial. Hence I think primorial is the best target and due weight is better achieved in this more specialized article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have left a pointer to this AfD at Talk:Primorial. I really think that notifying the editors of the affected article should be a required part of making a merge proposal within an AfD, since otherwise the likely outcome is similar to what already happened here: the editors of the merge target article object to the merge and revert it (as is proper procedure according to WP:BRD) but then the content that was supposed to be merged is either effectively deleted or restored, neither of which matches the consensus of the deletion discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for posting the notice. I've been slapped on the wrist before for prematurely taking actions toward merger before an AfD closes, so it is best an independent editor do this. I suppose proposed redirects have the same problem, although they are less invasive of the target article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only valid hits I could find on Google scholar were self-published popular math article arXiv:0804.2277 (which says only that 1728 is a compositorial cube) and a recent self-published book probably copied from Wikipedia. OEIS:A036691 has nothing of interest to say about this. I don't think there's enough non-trivial and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, nor even enough to justify merging with primorial.
- Oops, forgot to sign this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primorial and merge the content into that article. The concept is obscure but there are some minor references, like the David Wells book cited in the article and The Prime Pages. Gap9551 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if needed as this seems potentially useful content. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 22 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. Sandstein 14:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rummel[edit]

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

Firstly, it is questioned whether Martin is notable enough for his own wikipedia page. There are many, many (millions of) artists and musicians who have performed just as widely and released as many recordings who do not have a page. Secondly, there are not enough sources for most of the biographical information. In fact, I would go so far to say that most of the article is written by Martin Rummel himself. The information is incredibly detailed and a lot of it, such as Martin's appointment as Head of School, just a few weeks ago, is very recent, which you would not expect on a biography of a person of his relatively limited notability. Most of the sources are for the discography at the end, but many of these are not cited. Lastly, the style is very questionable. Compare the article with Martin's biography on the University of Auckland website: http://www.creative.auckland.ac.nz/people/profile/m-rummel, which is written in a very similar, boastful style and tone. Again, it seems clear that the article was written by Martin. The specificity of information for a relatively un-famous musician, the lack of sources to support this detailed information, and the narrative-style of writing point to the article being written by Martin himself. It begins like this and continues throughout: "The son of Peter Rummel, professor of law, grew up in Linz, where he went to primary school..." In summary, I believe this article fails on the grounds of: notability; lack of sources; and style. Mii 97531 (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to easily pass the WP:GNG guideline - an international recognised cellist with multiple coverage in a wide range of published media. The article has a lot of edits from unidentified sources so could have some WP:coi content. Needs better referencing, and a tidy up. Nothing that would make it into the delete category though. NealeFamily (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as still questionable, searches found a few links but simply not enough, and the current article is not satisfying the current notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, I would like to point out that I find it rather strange, that user's User:Mii 97531 only edit on this Wiki is the demand for deleting this article. To me this makes the impression the user has some personal problems with Martin Rummel, whatever they might be. It seems rather unlikely that someone who wishes to improve Wikipedia's quality would pick this article first. As the first author of this article on the German and English Wikipedia I am convinced Mr. Rummel is more than important enough to be mentioned on both sites, especially considering his CV. User:NealeFamily is right that there is definitely space for improvement. However, deleting this article would be really disproportionate. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 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. czar 08:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Clyde-Green[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

"Non-notable actor (see WP:BIO) whose body of work consists of one bit part in a TV mini-series about pirates (he's credited 16th out of the cast on the IMDB). Page created by an anon who (according to an IP look up) lives in a village adjacent to the location of Mr. Clyde-Green's alma mater- possibly he himself or a close associate. No obvious exposure in the wider national media."

The above was quoted from the 2007 AfD, and imagine my surprise when I found a new article created for this nonentity by yet another SPA, and who hadn't had any new credits since. The previous nomination rationale will do for me tonight, thanks. Of the sources listed in the article, one is IMDB, one is a broken link, and here's the sum total mention of the subject in the third: "Chris Green has nailed the cabaret crooner/Puck concept." A search on the UK Google turns up social media and user-generated sites. Fails the GNG and WP:ACTOR going away. Ravenswing 07:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not yet solidly independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 05:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 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--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Last[edit]

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

Singer with questionable notability, not sure how notable the show she was on is though either. Wgolf (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete This may just be a case of nationality. Non-English articles matter too. Was he very popular on that show? ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly nothing acceptable and I would've explored using PROD instead. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Should only keep if there are other media articles and other reliably sourced information to write about this person. Conspirasee1 (talk) 15:25, 22 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 Charlene (Tweet album). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won't Hurt Me[edit]

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlene (Tweet album). Although the song charted, the article gives us almost nothing more than the bare facts that it was from the album and that it charted. I'm not seeing anything close to the significant amount of coverage that would call for a stand-alone article. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charlene (Tweet album) as per NewYorkActuary, I don't think that any of these songs individually are notable. GAB^Hello! 21:11, 20 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 Charlene (Tweet album). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (Tweet song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song: Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable song. Redirect to Charlene (Tweet album). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlene (Tweet album) per WP:SONG. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charlene (Tweet album), makes the most sense since it is non-notable in itself. GAB^Hello! 21:08, 20 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" 19:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Dunn[edit]

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

Lack of independent sourcing establishing her notability as either an actress or a writer Roberticus talk 15:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently there are five (5) individuals named "Laura Dunn" on IMDB. Separately, in research sources among secondary sources, I can't isolate precisely which "Laura Dunn" is being discussed, in order to come to an assessment here. — Cirt (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there's not enough material in the secondary sourcing to confirm a match to the article's subject, doesn't that indicate that none of the 5 satisfy WP:GNG, or that a minimum, the notability of the article's subject is unverifiable as well? Roberticus talk 21:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if the page is deleted, this revision could be restored. If not, I'd quite like that revision moved to Laura Dunn (EastEnders). Anemone Projectors 17:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. Roberticus talk 21:14, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to verify notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I must agree with the above. After a basic search, there's no proof of notability. Unless someone can wade through all the spurious hits and find some undiscovered gems, the article should be deleted. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually compelling of better signs for notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter A. Eckstein[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG. Greek Legend (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral for now. Appears to pass WP:Prof#C6. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]
~~Keep~~. President of IEEE is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C6. Sławomir
Biały 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that he is president of IEEE-USA, not the whole of IEEE. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was noted. Does president of a National body suffice? I am inclined to think that it does. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I see. So the case for C6 is a bit weaker, but I think it probably still applies. Sławomir
Biały 14:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But note that in many cases a national organization (in all cases with which I am familiar, the U.S. professional academic organization) holds the most important conferences in a field, the one that non-US scholars need to attend for professional reasons; the U.S. (or in some fields the British, French, German or other) national organization originates professional policies in documents (standards of professional behavior and practice) that the international and smaller national organizations copy; and the National organization may publish the leading journals in a field.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's true in this case. The subject-specific units of IEEE (such as the Computer Society) are the ones associated with their scholarly activities. Judging from http://ieeeusa.org/about/activities.asp the IEEE-USA appears to be more connected to policy and (non-academic) professional development. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment below. Your analysis, and David's correction, makes me think neutral. I don't really feel qualified to judge whether a president of a national level professional organization is automatically notable under some criterion like C6. But I am increasingly convinced that C6 itself does not actually apply here. Sławomir
Biały 14:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are limp. Suffolk County community college news? And the IEEE's own publications? No. He should be notable on his own, not simply because he's heading the US branch of an international organization. Very little coverage of him otherwise. He should just be mentioned in the article about the IEEE. VanEman (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question C6 applies specifically to scholars and scholarly organizations. Eckstein is President of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a professional organization. So, this seems more similar to, say, the List of presidents of the American Medical Association, most of whom do not have pages, and most of whom are practitioners with teaching appointments but not research/scholarly careers, or to Presidents of the American Institute of Architects. Do presidents of national professional organizations get automatic notability?E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is Eckstein a scholar? I ask because there is no information onhis publication record or research interests. Practitioners obviously teach in engineering, architecture, medicine and other fields. But they need a different set of criteria by which to evaluate notability than researchers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have a good deal of personal familiarity with Northrop Grumman ILSD and based on this guy's resume as to what he does at work and where he is teaching, he is highly unlikely to be a researcher/scholar. It appears that the work is doing is very much applied and since it's in a logistics service (logistics at a defense company involves systems integration, spares planning, cost management, getting widgets from point A to point B, etc.) may even be peripheral to design and development. If someone has a source showing otherwise (like a list of his publications) I'd be open to it of course, but I'm not seeing anything. Edited to add, I further note he does not even appear to have a PhD as you would expect from a scholar and that his bachelor's degree is in Electrical Engineering TECHNOLOGY, not in Electrical Engineering...the BSEET is generally not considered on the same level as a standard BSEE or other BS Engineering degree, it is more of a technician's degree. I did Google because I knew a scholarly physics professor with that last name but he is a different person from the subject of the article. I do not think this person meets notability standards just by being head of the US branch of a professional organization. TheBlinkster (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing comfortably suggesting his own solidly notable article, still questionable overall. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 22 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 Kareo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rodrigues[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The only source providing substantial coverage is a 3 part interview at http://www.sramanamitra.com/. Interviews are fairly useless as reliable sources and I don't think the site meets RS either. The others are brief mentions or don't even mention him e.g. [45]. Searches for other potential sources have not turned up anything suitable. SmartSE (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the creator of this article. I think I'm also being accused of having a conflict of interest, which I hope doesn't diminish the value of my obvious Keep vote, but I'd like to chime in anyway. Dan Rodrigues founded two companies, Scour and Kareo that have received media coverage, and which are accordingly on Wikipedia. Sources for this article included mentions of him in the NY Times[[46]], the Orange County Register[[47]] and CNET[[48]], in addition to a longer interview[[49]] which provides a good deal of useful biographical information. I can't speak to how reliable it is, but it seems quite detailed and professional enough. All this information is readily available online with a Google search. I just added another source from page 1 on Google,[[50]] to source his age when founding Scour, his first company, and how he transitioned from running a consulting company to his current company Kareo. I think there's enough there now, but can add more if necessary. I'll wait for the group's consensus.Timtempleton (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited so it is irrelevant whether or not he founded notable companies. The crucial word in your rationale is 'mentions' because as I stated in the nomination, mentions are of no use for determining notability. The source you added is an interview in a specialist industry publication, which isn't much use either. SmartSE (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see that I added another source? I can look for some more if it's not enough, but let's see what someone else thinks.Timtempleton (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I took a look at the sources and reviewed the third-party ones that actually mention Rodrigues in more than passing fashion. (I did not review the WSJ sources as they’re behind a paywall.) In all I see one source that plainly is the kind of thing that helps establish notability (a 2008 interview at salon.com), one that might (an interview at electronichealthreporter.com) and two that don’t, by reason of scope or source reliability.

Startup, Survival, Scaling: Kareo CEO Dan Rodrigues – blog post, uncertain / unknown reliability

Agent's Role In Music Site May Be Shift In Rights War – NY Times – RS, but just a couple quotes; not direct coverage of Rodrigues

HIT Thought Leader Highlight: Dan Rodrigues, Kareo – an interview of him in an on line industry news site; perhaps RS.

Why Scour is not the new Napster – Salon.com – RS, direct interview; but old

I echo the observation that being CEO of a notable company does not make one notable. I looked around and found a good deal about his companies, which of course usually includes his name as president or founder, but not much about him personally. What’s there is not nothing – but to me it’s not enough. Absent more sources covering him, versus incidental mentions or company coverage, I’d be inclined to delete. JohnInDC (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source #14 (SoCalTech) [[51]] is a somewhat detailed profile of Rodrigues that wasn't listed above, and it's a good reliable source. There are a couple of videos posted on him in his Google search results but they look like they were posted by companies that invest in them, so I skipped them. I'll start a Google alert and keep my eye out for more coverage. Timtempleton (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found and integrated info from a more recent (Aug. 2015) Rodrigues interview, from LATechwatch.com. It's source #16 now.[[52]]. It's a company profile, but there's some personal info there, but I didn't use all of it as it was info of secondary interest, such as his favorite LA bar.Timtempleton (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems notable, decent article, it might just need more editing. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's not a clear path either way so, considering there's no firm perspective of votes, I'm relisting again with hopes of a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps Redirect to Kareo as this is still questionable for the necessary solid independent notability apart from the company itself, thus for his own notable article. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 23 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. Lots of ideas here about merges; discussion about the article can continue on its talk page. No consensus for a particular action has arisen from this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide energy supply[edit]

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

Looks like WP:OR The Banner talk 21:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably attributable to sources; the tables appear to be and other information can probably be found in existing articles. Merge to Primary energy? Peter James (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original research is done by about 200 experts of the International Energy Agency. They collect, analyse and publish periodically huge amounts of energy supply data. Worldwide energy supply aims to be a short summary, suitable for Wikipedia.

I like Peter's idea to merge to Primary energy, the two articles are complimentary. But then the title should not be Primary energy which is only a part of the whole energy supply chain. Rwbest (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some parts of the article read like an essay (e.g. mankind has used fuel since ancient time with the control of fire), but others are salvageable (e.g. the table in Worldwide_energy_supply#Energy_production). I have no informed opinion about whether the title is appropriate for a summary article, or whether the article should be split-merged in multiple pieces (many possible targets; one can look at Outline_of_energy#Energy_industry for inspiration). Tigraan (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split-merge in multiple pieces would eliminate the article's clear sequence of processes in energy supply, production - conversion and trade - final consumption. Rwbest (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked on MGTom's talk page to comment on merge to Primary energy, but he doesn't respond. Is he still active on WP? Is it correct that I start merging on my own? Rwbest (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with merging yourself but you should refrain from significant edits on an article that is at AfD. So, you can edit target articles (and follow WP:BRD on these pages) but do not blank entire sections of this one. (The most frequent case is that a short stub will get deleted but a couple of sentences can be copied to a larger article, in which case doing it saves work from the closing admin.) Tigraan (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged Primary energy in Worldwide energy supply, leaving out thermodynamic terminology that I consider not appropriate in this general description of energy supply. But it could be added in a separate section. Rwbest (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The table in Primary energy does not reflect the sources to carriers conversion sufficiently accurate and complete to fit in Worldwide energy supply. I'm trying to improve it. Rwbest (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this may and need to be improved but it's imaginably acceptable as a subject somehow. SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 22 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 Della Falls. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Drinkwater[edit]

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

Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as a local prospector and explorer, with no reliable source coverage to make him extralocally notable for either endeavour. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Della Falls. Drinkwater gets some brief shout outs in British Columbia place name books such as British Columbia Place Names and Hiking Vancouver Island. As the current article is unsourced, there's nothing to be merged to the target where he is briefly mentioned already. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect -- perhaps to Della Falls, provided this is verifiable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned, not confidently acceptable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:58, 22 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 by a non-socking user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Shroff[edit]

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

~~Google news search results are about Manoj Shroff of "Equinox". This article is about Manoj Shroff of "Niti group". Greek Legend (talk) 01:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I'm nearly almost tagging as G11 as there are no convincing signs this can be noticeably improved at all, nothing at all for a better notable article yet. SwisterTwister talk 07:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR by a non-socking user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Madhurima Sundersen[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NACTOR Greek Legend (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 15:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing explicitly better for WP:ENTERTAINER, best deleted and restarted when better, SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 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. czar 08:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bounded Vision[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:COMPANY as there are no reliable sources. Greek Legend (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and planned to nominate since of this currently satisfies the notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time, per the nomination being struck as being from a confirmed sock puppet. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:03, 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. czar 14:47, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WellMed Medical Management[edit]

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

This article was primarily written to advertise the company, which does not even serve the entire United States, just Texas and Florida. It is not related to any significant or notable subjects either; the founder does not count. Given the amount of activity and non-free content that was added by the creator of this article, the creator most likely broke NPOV writing the article.

Other than its presence in these two states, WellMed, its founder, and its "significant" awards and subsidiaries and acts of philanthropy, are not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. If I removed everything non-notable and not properly cited from this article, nothing except the header would be left at all. Even the footnote references are just links to the homepages of websites that are not even part of the press.

Let us remind such companies that Wikipedia is **not** a place to advertise or promote non-notable services and products, even if it is "big business." Longbyte1 (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches only found a few links and nothing actually better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N as well as the fact that this seems like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a billboard. Cawhee^Talk 02:01, 21 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 by a non-socking user. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global Expansion Summit[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:EVENT. No news about this summit and it's founders. Greek Legend (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this actually suggests any better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 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. Michig (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HDanywhere[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Kvng's argument to deprod the article was essentially WP:DINC. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing but PR blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I have cut WP:PROMOTIONAL material from the article. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROMOTIONAL status remains. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - I'm not wholesale opposed to WP:TNT but I WP:DEPRODded because don't think flawed articles on notable subjects should be deleted through WP:PROD. 81.174.164.147 PRODded because, "Article is an advert for the company, it was marked in may 2015 as an advert and no changes have been made to improve this in a year." GeoffreyT2000 is now proposing deletion on WP:N grounds. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in cited reliable sources, specifically: [53], [54], [55]. Additional sources are not difficult to find: [56], [57], [58]. ~Kvng (talk) 13:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are finding nothing else convincingly better aside from a few other links. Draft if needed, SwisterTwister talk 04:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would have considered speedy A7--there isn othing in the article to even indicate significance. The firm appears to be a routine video installer. DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needs more than a handful of product reviews. The products are not notable on their own, and even if one or two were, the company isn't necessarily notable for that reason alone. -- RM 22:30, 20 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strada Stretta[edit]

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

Apparently a TV series that is or will be (I can't find sources to determine which) aired on TVM (Malta). —teb728 t c 06:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a tv series that is currently being featured in Malta based on Strada Stretta, a historic street in Valletta as per here The article is of poor quality and lacks context. An article about the street would be more ideal and a subsection on the series can be added. Most characters are missing even main ones. There are some good sources about this but in general the series is covered in published newspapers rather than online news.Continentaleurope (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing to establish notability as per WP:MOVIE of the subject from my searches. There is not the smallest bit of coverage I could find. Kagundu^{Wanna Chat?} 17:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to improve it and established notability. Please see the improvement and discuss accordingly. Please do not expect that a series in a language speaken by few has similar coverage to English language series. Thanks.Continentaleurope (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this actually seems to exist at least by the sources and this will need familiar attention. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 22 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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Nell[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Declined PROD, with the suggestion that "old newspapers somewhere" have covered him. Well, let's look. A search of google.com/newspapers turns up a police chief. Adding the word "baseball" to the search still yields nothing on this subject. Onus is on you, Alex, to produce sources to establish notability. I looked and can't find any. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is getting ridiculous. These nominations are bordering on WP:POINTy, with a clear effort to drive me away from Wikipedia. This attempt to stifle contributions to Wikipedia, even those that have legitimate research value, is a major factor active membership on Wikipedia has been in active decline for over half a decade. Gordon Nell won five home run titles and a Triple Crown. He had over 350 home runs. To assume he does not have appropriate sourcing somewhere is ridiculous, and that mentality lends itself to having myriad articles of persons from the pre-Internet era being deleted. The goal of Wikipedia is to educate, to spread and disseminate meaningful knowledge. I do not understand the reasoning behind this continued assault on intellectual edification. There is no reason for these persistent AFDs other than to attempt to cause members to become so angry or upset that they will leave. Alex (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Point by point response...
  - This is getting ridiculous. These nominations are bordering on WP:POINTy, with a clear effort to drive me away from Wikipedia. This attempt to stifle contributions to Wikipedia, even those that have legitimate research value, is a major factor active membership on Wikipedia has been in active decline for over half a decade.
    - No. Wikipedia has policies that tell us what belongs and what doesn't belong. WP:GNG is the applicable one in this case. We are not trying to get you to leave Wikipedia; we are trying to get you to improve your contributions.
  - Gordon Nell won five home run titles and a Triple Crown. He had over 350 home runs.
    - These things are true. These things do not mean that he passes WP:BASE/N.
  - To assume he does not have appropriate sourcing somewhere is ridiculous, and that mentality lends itself to having myriad articles of persons from the pre-Internet era being deleted.
    - It certainly can be hard to find sources for "pre-Internet" subjects. But it's not impossible. The Google News Archive is just one way to find newspaper articles that have been uploaded to the Internet. I've gotten articles on old time baseball figures to GA status through that method. There are other databases as well. Any of them could have sources on this subject, but the WP:BURDEN on providing those sources is on the editor who adds the information.
  - The goal of Wikipedia is to educate, to spread and disseminate meaningful knowledge. I do not understand the reasoning behind this continued assault on intellectual edification. There is no reason for these persistent AFDs other than to attempt to cause members to become so angry or upset that they will leave.
    - Again, Wikipedia only functions because of core policies, like WP:GNG. If we throw that out the window, then Wikipedia ceases to be useful. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Miles away from notability. This isn't Baseballwiki. John from Idegon (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to closing administrator: Muboshgu and John from Idegon are incapable of providing objective viewpoints at this time, as they are both involved in a harassment case currently unfolding in arbitration. This is a clear case of collusion. Please consider this before acting. Alex (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. I notice you forgot to provide a link to that AN/I section for the closing administrator. Here it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is mostly unreferenced and has no information on why this relatively unremarkable career minor leaguer should have an article. The "one of the most feared hitters in the country" quote is attributed to some journeyman pitcher that he apparently had a good game against... not exactly a good source. Another poorly written article without even basic formatting... sigh.. Spanneraol (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources demonstrating WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with the New Mexico Baseball book that is linked in the article? That is more than zero. 14:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep - I have to agree with Alex on this one (on the result, not the persecution). WP:BASEBALL/N does not do a very good job dealing with pre-WWII minor leaguers, when the minor leagues had a different meaning. Nell reached the pre-War American Association, one of the top tier minor leagues before it became a development league, and when it was regionally far more important than the high minor leagues today. While he only played a few games there, for which I would normally not advocate for notability, Nell also has that Triple Crown, albeit in a low minor league. As there is already one source in the article, and the availability of online sources for subjects 70+ years old can be sporadic, I have to say keep, perhaps on an WP:IAR basis. Rlendog (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor League Baseball wasn't the big deal then that it is now. That's why the notable career minor leaguer from back in the day, a Joe Bauman type, is truly rare. There's nothing to suggest Gordon Nell is in that class. So you're suggesting we IAR to keep this, why? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not the case. And I am referring to the high minor leagues, which Nell briefly attained, not the D league in which he won his triple crown. At a time when the Major Leagues stopped at the Mississippi River, the Canadian border and essentially the Mason-Dixon line, and even major cities such as Baltimore lacked a Major League team, and there was no TV to broadcast Major League games to cities beyond the 10 Major League cities, the high minors were the highest level much of North America got to see. And Nell played in the high minors when those minor league teams were not just developmental teams tied to Major League team, but independent teams that were locally and even regionally important. Rlendog (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on Cb162'a research, he appears appropriate to keep based on WP:GNG, not even needing IAR. Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG. A search of Newspapers.com turns up over 1,000 hits. Examples: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and lots more. Cbl62 (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New Mexico baseball book linked in the article has a full page discussing Nell and also represents significant coverage in a reliable source. Cbl62 (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this one does meet GNG. Onus has been on Alex to provide these sources, so I thank you for finding them and will keep newspapers.com in mind in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Muboshgu: In the past, I have used google news archive and newspaperarchive.com. Google news archive is much harder to use than it was in the past. For the past year or more, I've been relying much more heavily on Newspapers.com. For those interested in topics from the 1900s to the 1970s, I highly recommend it. Cbl62 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Google News archive is indeed worse than it used to be. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - pre-WWII Minor Leagues were different than today. And not in the way people are claiming. There was clamor for the Pacific Coast League to become a third major league, which would never happen with minor leagues today. The leagues were more independent than they are now, meaning someone had to be pretty good to stick around as opposed to finding a team that would stick him in the minors for a while. Numerous newspaper results, which would be highly unusual for a non-notable minor leaguer today, and pretty near impossible 70+ years ago. He easily fulfills the criteria. Smartyllama (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't play in the PCL. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - He played in the American Association, which was the same level (although I would acknowledge that regional factors probably give PCL an edge in notability. Rlendog (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's excellent research. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps somewhat confidently as this is convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 22 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 Move to Draft as shown by the history and I frankly concur with that considering this article is noticeably unsourced and will need better improvements (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Steven[edit]

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

This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources Epic Tracks (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Unsourced BLP's you can just do a BLP prod you know. As a note-this is technically a orphan as the pages that link to it is for someone with the same name. Wgolf (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In spite of the article's lack of references, a simple Google search turns up plenty. It appears this gentleman is a fairly big-name businessman in Kansas [59], a notable poker player [60], and even had an arrest for public nudity that made headlines [61]...weird. In any case, I'd suggest the nominator be bold and attempt to fix the article. --Non-Dropframe _talk 00:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or keep subject passes notability, but without sources the article shouldn't be displayed. WP:SOFIXIT - editors that are enthusiastic about the article should put sources in or it should be userfied until those sources are put in.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Just some poker sites and local blogs. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article creator has ownership issues, and from the level of detail introduced, almost certainly a conflict of interest. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It was not proper for you to move this article to userspace during the AFD process. That move should have waited for the AFD process to conclude. Your move has subverted the AFD process by making a unilateral decision regarding the outcome. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Was merely trying to avoid being forced to take that editor to AN3, the way it was going. Much easier if the thing got consigned to the servers' trash can. Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:35, 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.

[1] "Augusto Scalbi festejó en Uruguay". Uno. (in Spanish)

[2] "Con la fuerza de un año nuevo". Olé. (in Spanish)

[3] "Con el pie derecho". Corsa. (in Spanish)

[4] "Honda y Renault dejaron su marca". Mas Deportes. (in Spanish)

[5] Ross Logan (29 March 2016). "How did he survive? Racing driver's car spins through the SIX times after 'brakes fail' at 136mph". Daily Mirror.

[6] "Augusto Scalbi rolls over six times in car after losing control on 136mph bend". Daily Mail. 28 March 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]