Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 January	23 January >

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 move to userspace. The article is found to not currently meet up to inclusion standards, and as recommended below shall be moved to the creator's userspace. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleem Haider Sharar[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:BIO JMHamo (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find his name (or the equivalent of his name) linked to Youtube videos, but that's basically all. Given that there are no English-language sources, it would seem to me that this should be included in the Urdu WP, not the English WP. It is clear that the sources here are from someone's scrap-book, which means that it's hard to reconstruct the context, but it also means we have a conflict of interest. LaMona (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find reference to the cited book in National Library of Indian Government Nayab hain hum : Bambai ke shairon aur mushairon ka ek tazkira (1950-1985) / Qazi Vasi Ahmad ; compiled by Nadim Siddique. Sayedminhal (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find reference to the cited book in Toronto Public Library Shuʻrāʼe Mahārāshṭra : Mumbaʼī aura maẓāfāt : Poets, Urdu--20th century--Biography / by Nuṣrat, K̲h̲alīquzzamān̲, author; Year/Format: 2014, Book , 2 volumes (942 pages) Sayedminhal (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and userfy at best as the current article is simply not currently acceptable and would need considerable work to become an encyclopedia article. SwisterTwister talk 02:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Categories We can add/move this article to Category:Urdu poets from India or Category:Urdu poets whichever seems appropriate Sayedminhal (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erlet Shaqe[edit]

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

Self-promotion. Fails WP:BIO as the person is not notable at all. Typical self-promotion through self published webpages. The only achievement is that he studied engineering and graduated. The list of alleged publications is nowhere to be found, no ISBN or media coverage, also a simple Google search shows them as nonexistent. Fails WP:RS as the only sources are the person's own web pages. The first is [1] is mentioned inside the article as the person's own page, now is defunct. The other page is from his other page, AEA [2] Albania Energy Association. Beside the big name, e simple visit to the site shows that it does not contain anything, only links to European media and news related to the energy sector, nothing about AEA. The page shows two CVs, the person as CEO and a friend of his as CFO. Mondiad (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a single in-depth article on any of the search engines. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently questionable, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability, and at least the part about his book seem to be a hoax as a google search turns up no results for those titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWisePowder (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. A gsearch, in English and in (gtranslated) Albanian brings up nothing useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Femi Hollinger-Janzen[edit]

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

Concern was that the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by IP user based on the fact that the player was drafted. Which is true, but he hasn't signed. Not that it would've made a difference. — Michael (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Michael (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or widerGNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Meehan[edit]

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

No indication this person meets WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE John from Idegon (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 17:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- reluctantly, because there is bias (on WP but especially in the outside music world) against the accomplishments in Drum and Bugle Corps, and more biographical articles on the principal creators, transformers are needed. But while Meehan seems to be active in many different aspects of D&BC, none of them alone or in sum add up to a GNG notability or CREATIVE. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this suggests a better notable article, not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 25 January 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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Wish List[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 23:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only coverage seems to be IMDB and the broadcaster's own webpage; everything else seems to be for the common noun phrase "celebrity wish list," rather than this show.-Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at what NinjaRobotPirate found, I guess I'm on the fence. I'm not familiar with any of these British sources and I don't feel like I can assess their reliability. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, I was going to vote to delete, but then I found some coverage: [3] from the Daily Record, [4] from Birmingham Mail, [5] from Worcester News, [6] from Daily Express, [7] from South Wales Argus. Also, it seems to have gotten nominated for some reality TV award: [8]. Most of the sources I found are either tabloids or regional newspapers that took up the story about a local charity that got highlighted. So, I'd like to hear what other people think about these sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 18:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was canned after 8 episodes. I can't say I recall watching it but it was canned quickly for a reason - the channel decided it was non notable! Szzuk (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion was "relisted" twice within a few minutes on 20 December. The second relist by @UY Scuti: invoked a Twinkle bug whereby the entry was commented out of the 20 December log but no new listing was created, and therefore this page hasn't appeared on a log page since. Fixed now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Finngall ^talk 21:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zero-interest show that came and went quickly, but it aired on a national network; sometimes that's all that counts. Nate • (chatter) 07:51, 23 January 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) sst✈ ^(speak now) 01:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Mountain (Michigan)[edit]

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

Article lacks proper sources and reads like an advertisement. It's also unclear why a small seasonal resort is notable enough to merit inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkuras (talk • contribs)

I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, so format this correctly as needed. But anyway, I am from southeast Michigan and many residents of that part of the state go "up north" for skiing and other winter recreational activities. As a notable ski resort/destination in the Cadillac/Beulah/Traverse City area, I think it merits inclusion. I'd say it's more notable in Michigan than anywhere else. I've even met people there from Indiana. I'm not affiliated with Crystal Mountain, but I have spent a good amount of time there since I was a kid. I think this article could be improved (more sources, link with other ski hills in Michigan under a common heading, etc.) but I do not think it should be deleted. Have a great day!2601:40F:400:5610:65F8:D287:68E:21BD (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no comment on the nomination itself. @Pkuras: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 20:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems in line with other ski resort articles. Rmhermen (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be independent coverage of this page online.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (Non-admin closure). The nomination has been withdrawn, and nobody else has expressed support for deletion; thus closing per SK1 Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My Kuya's Wedding[edit]

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

~~Film with questionable notability, see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Ng Sablay Wgolf (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

many alts per WP:BEFORE... How were these missed ????

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

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

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

Keep per topic meeting WP:NF. Yes the inexperienced editor created a poor article, which was quickly sent to AFD... but even though AFD is not meant to force cleanup, the topic was easy to improve. There is really no need for this to remain listed. It serves the project that this remain and be further improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn-this was a tough call-but withdrawing this now. Wgolf (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You da bomb. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep (NAC) The nomination has been withdrawn, and nobody else is supporting a "delete" outcome, so closing per SK1 Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manay Po[edit]

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

~~Film with questionable notability, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hari Ng Sablay Wgolf (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alts:

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

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

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

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

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

Currently neutral toward a brand new article sent to AFD within minutes of being contributed. And sure, while what was nominated looked poor, it was pretty easy to do some WP:BEFORE and improve its format quite a bit. Its sheer number of involved notables and its two nominations for film awards notable (even if only) to the Philippines, infers that it likely may have enough coverage in Filipino or Tagalog sources not crawled or indexed properly by Google News. I will await input from editors better able to search that part of the world. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am going to go now with a KEEP per easily found significant coverage in Philippine Daily Inquirer,[13] [14] and where there's one, there's more. WP:NF is met. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And as the topic is notable but the contributor apparently misunderstands WP:NF and MOS:FILM, we'd do far better by encouraging him to gain clue than we would by deleting his offerings because they are poorly written.

Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG/WP:NF: [15], [16], [17]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Another odd case here, but looks notable now. Wgolf (talk) 01:22, 24 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Ng Sablay[edit]

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

Film with questionable notability-upon looking up the page creators history they seem to have several films like this. Wgolf (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alts per WP:BEFORE

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

long title:(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)

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

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

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

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

~~Currently neutral~~ toward a brand new article sent to AFD within minutes of being contributed. And sure, while what was nominated looked poor, it was pretty easy to do some WP:BEFORE and improve its format quite a bit. My thought is that the sheer number of involved Philippines notables allows an inference that it likely may have enough coverage in Filipino or Tagalog sources not crawled or indexed properly by Google News. Under WP:CSB I will await input from editors better able to search that part of the world. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-part of it was that these articles the creator has been making were unreferenced and it was hard to find info for me on these films! Wgolf (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and am being perhaps just a bit luckier with my BEFORE. I've advised him on his talk page and hope he pays attention. Y Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And KEEP now that I found a wealth of coverage for something called a "Box office hit". Time to improve, not to delete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for now, it does meet with WP:GNG as a criteria with WP:NFILM. ApprenticeFan ^work 13:50, 24 January 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 by RHaworth. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green cedar valley[edit]

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

There is neither a Wikipedia-style, over here what the user's page. The easiest way is to build everything from scratch, or to make corrections, here's my opinion. Lukaslt13 --Talk 20:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I CSD'd. Absolutely no evidence of notability. Looks like junk. Legacypac (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some kind of non-notable online learning platform. Doesn't seem like much independent coverage.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack notability. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of 3D locations in Google Earth[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This could be an infinite list. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not infinite, but large enough to be indistinguishable from infinite. LaMona (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The question of deletion was already discussed on the Google Earth talk page, where the consensus was that the list should be kept, but moved to this separate page. Guidelines were developed for compiling the list so that it does not become unmanageably large; closer adherence to these guidelines by editors should help mitigate the size of the list. If it continues to grow too large, further guidelines can be discussed on this article's Talk page, but so far no concerns have been raised there. ESRoads (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've read these guidelines and thes strongly smell original research, especially what concerns identification and naming of these areas. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that talk page has many arguments against keeping the list at all, and more than one was concerns about the size. I see the ideas about defining contiguous areas, but I'm still in doubt of the value of such a list in Wikipedia since one can get it directly from Google. Basically, I don't see the "value added" of having it on Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Yes, there were arguments for deleting the list—on the Google Earth talk page, not here—just as there were several for keeping it; I made some arguments there regarding the value of the list. More to the point, though, is that the arguments were made and a decision reached, which was to keep the list but split it off onto its own page. Had the decision been reached to delete it altogether, it would have been deleted at that time, and I don't believe it's necessary or productive to repeat the discussion here.

In particular, WP's AfD policy discourages deletion of very new articles that haven't yet had a chance to undergo editing and improvement. One way I suggest this topic can be improved upon is to make it a comparison of the 3D technology between various platforms, such as Apple Maps and the Here/Nokia/Ovi lineage along with Google Earth, since the development and deployment of this technology has played a notable part in the advancement of web mapping platforms from all three companies. While I believe the topic deserves better encyclopedic coverage on WP in general, in the absence of that a comparison listing here would prove quite illustrative.

At the moment, the sole argument in favor of deletion has to do with the article's size, which I agree is formidable. However, it's worth considering that in some regions, the number of entries is at least as likely to decrease as it is to increase; as larger areas are covered by the imagery, separate contiguous areas will grow and merge in single larger ones—this even happened several times as the listing was being compiled—and thus there will be fewer entries needed under that heading. Obviously the list will never become infinite, so there's no need to give weight to that objection, but if the list's size is a concern, we can certainly re-evaluate the criteria for inclusion or the formatting, so that the article can be edited and improved. ESRoads (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum ESRoads has made it clear that AfD is the wrong forum for this discussion. Further discussion and a possible RfC belong on the talk page of one of the articles. See WP:Deletion policy. Unscintillating (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not. Google Earth talk page has limited visibility. This is a correct venue. You have to prove the encyclopedic utility of this list to a broader audience. there are several types of legal lists in wikipedia. Which is this one? There are multitudes of mapping software with geotagging capability. In is not for wikipedia to do their job of cataloguing their detail. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it your position that there is nothing to merge back? Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - If anybody convincingly explains the encyclopedic utility of this list, its verifiability, and non-OR, I may even change my vote. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a sincere question. Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        And it was a sincere answer. I am not a hardcore deletionist. At the moment I sincerely see its utility on par with List of crossroads in Washington DC. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've stated below, the timelines of the source material and of this page will corroborate that this page is not OR—there are even posts there describing the process being used to compile the database. If the predecessor list from the main page contained OR, it has been discarded as that content wasn't used in compiling this one. I'm not sure what about the page guidelines continue to suggest OR; the identities of the areas are derived from the source material and the entry names are determined by the editing process.

I'm not aware of any verifiability concerns, but the veracity of the information on this page is easily confirmed. As for notability and utility, per WP:ATD these should be addressed by improving the article or perhaps through WP:ATD-M and so are not grounds for deletion. ESRoads (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete original unreferenced hobby of single-purpose account ESRoads. Two of handful references are to blogs, and one blog even says "So, we decided to create a KML file combining all the locations from the Wikipedia page, and the list from Google, and a couple of extras that aren’t in either list.". ROTFL! - üser:Altenmann >t 05:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The KML file has been actively researched and expanded on during the time this list was deleted from the Google Earth page; if you correlate the dates from the submissions there versus the timeline of this page and its predecessor on the main page, you will find that the OR is now coming from that third-party source, not the other way around. Also go back and look at the history of the list; it was not only created, but deleted from the main page before I was ever involved. I only became involved when the question of deletion made it to the talk page, and the only contributions I made to this topic were in response to a call to create the new page that was agreed upon by consensus there. ESRoads (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NOTESAL. This list isn't discussed by independent reliable sources, nor is there any sort of significant coverage of the topic. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:49, 26 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IceTre[edit]

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

Article appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Only references are from a record label/distribution company Empire Distribution, a bio link to MTV that is broken (and probably a duplicated bio from record label), and one remaining non-trivial reference. Subject in question does not seem to meet any of the 12 MUSICBIO criteria. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, one of a billion remix artists with no significant coverage online from WP:RS. I was just about to nominate for speedy deletion as spam, but that can be fixed, unlike the problem of notability. His one claim to fame seems to be "...has also had opportunities to film concerts for Tyler The Creator, Kid Ink, and T-Pain while aslo having opened up for Bone Thugs N Harmony on their "E.1999" tour, IAMSU on his "Eyes On Me" tour, and Kirko Bangz on his "The Trillest" tour with Bun B, although he was not there to perform", which indicates he might have notability as a filmmaker, but I can find nothing online to support this claim, so I'm assuming he simply brought a camera along to shows, and hasn't released any of this. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 25 January 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. WP:G5 by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) sst ✈ 17:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ponnambili[edit]

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

The article fails WP:TVSERIES JackTracker (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: The article has been speedy deleted underr CSD G5 criteria as a recreation by a sock account.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 22 January 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coda Media[edit]

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

Blatantly fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. No indication of notability and no evidence of notability either. Couldn't find a single reliable source about this. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delele nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is questionably notable and improvable from the current article, restart at best if better. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 25 January 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard under criterion G3. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 07:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Cannito[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax. Sources fail to support the article; they confirm that the named teams won certain games, but none mention Cannito by name as being a team member. Searching for background, a user talk page mentions the (now-deleted) Talk:Giancarlo "DioxiNe" Cannito containing "a theory" about a previous version of the article being a hoax, before being prodded. This doesn't seem blatant enough to meet WP:G3, so may as well take this through AfD for the record. Can User:Prisencolin shed any light on the deleted "theory"? McGeddon (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was named as a hoax in May 2015: Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Archive_1#Giancarlo_Cannito. Can't find a single mention of him in WP:RS online, so fails WP:BIO either way. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 16:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (WP:G4) more or less a recreation of not one but two other pages that have existed in the past about this person. The part that's a hoax is that the information in this article is just a fork of the content on f0rest, but with mentions of Counter-Strike replaced with Call of Duty. The various teams and plays mentioned on this page do certainly exist, but Giancarlo Cannito has no connection to them. An online search suggests that this may be a real person who plays online games, but has nowhere near the amount of notability required for WP.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:40, 22 January 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss (Dara song)[edit]

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

Majority of the article is unsourced, not notable and is seemingly full of useless information. Equil빵^(talk) 14:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The song's top 5 position of the official Korean Goan chart, the information about it being used in an advertisement and the song's music video would show that notability of the subject is fairly more than small. However, I have actually encountered charting songs that unfortunately lack in-depth information in sources, (ex: "All I Really Want" by Kim Lukas), so I don't want my statement to be too much of a definite keep statement for this article's nobility. But something other than a delete or redirect at least should do. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 00:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. There are equally as many other songs with even higher charting power, however, there are no articles about them as charting high does not really matter at all. Charting high usually means that the song is catchy or pleasant to the ear, nothing more. Songs are also constantly being used in commercial, so being used in one does not make it any more notable than other songs that were not used, it merely means the song fits what they are trying to bring across. To be honest, do we really need a synopsis for a music video of only 5 mins. I am sure anyone will be able to watch the video and understand it, it just a music video, not some complicated film that needs prior knowledge to understand. It doesn't matter if there are articles similar to this, it does not make this any better to keep.Equil빵^(talk) 02:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've already nominated the article for deletion, you don't get to double-dip. — ξ ^xplicit 02:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It Should Remain. How high or low the single charted has little to nothing do with the fact that it was given a page. If contributors were to go by that premise, honestly, every page based around a single should be up for deletion. The point is if the song is noteworthy enough to be given a page, which this single is. Synopsis's of music video's merely add substance, it is not a crucial addition to any article but it is not a problem either. There are indeed problems with this page, but it can be easily rectified and sorted out with proper references, more background information, and a better layout. The reasons put forth are rather picky in my opinion, and are not good enough for this page to be deleted. Kittykat407 02:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A top-five single with some coverage, clearly notable. It could use some work, but deletion is not the answer. The only section that has no sources is the synopsis of the music video, which Wikipedia allows per the second paragraph of WP:PLOTSUM#Citations. — ξ ^xplicit 02:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though I am not able to find more significant sources, the single meets WP:NSONG; it has charted at #5 on a national chart. Ya sh ! 03:53, 30 January 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 12:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masters of Cinema releases[edit]

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

I'm nominating this in relation to the current AfD for Masters of Cinema. I have no true opinion at this point in time about MoC's notability, although I'm leaning towards a weak keep there.

As far as this page goes, this is ultimately a list of the DVD releases by MoC. It has no true encyclopedic value beyond being a database or catalog for their titles and can be considered WP:INDISCRIMINATE data. A search for sources for the MoC organization only brought up two reviews for their DVDs, Faust and Alfred Hitchcock. Normally I'd probably recommend a merge, but only about two of these titles really warrant inclusion or specific mention in the main article and there's already mention in the main article that the organization has a DVD line, so there's not really anything else to merge at this time. Given that there's little reason for a list of the releases on the main page (and it'd easily become unwieldy given the number of releases, especially if they continue to release), I'm arguing for this page to be outright deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple of dozen reviews for the releases in The Guardian and The Telegraph. There are hundreds more out there. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This just seems to be an advert for their releases using Amazon as a source. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company's releases consistently place on the top of DVD and Blu-ray releases of the year lists[18]. Deleting this would be like deleting List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there seems to be plenty of precedent for lists of this type for "boutique" type labels - see those included at Category:Home video lines and Category:Lists of films by home video label. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that lists of this nature really belong on Wikipedia per WP:NOTDIR. Video releases aren't exactly rare nowadays and few of their releases are independently notable outside of the main organization, by which I mean that not many have actually received a review for the specific DVD/Blu-ray release. This can be argued as different from something that was released during a period in time when home releases were fairly rare. I also have to point out that there was a bit of trouble finding coverage for the main Masters of Cinema article itself - and that it was also clearly written to promote the organization and (more specifically) the video releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't know how you are having trouble finding sources. I'm fairly sure every release will have multiple reviews, as they are a celebrated label with highly anticipated releases which often make the top releases of the year lists. Searching for Eureka Masters of Cinema on Google gives 340,000 results. Also, the Criterion list was a featured list candidate, so I'm sure that sets a precedent. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The amount of WP:GHITS doesn't mean much on Wikipedia, as many of those could be either junk hits or e-commerce sites. What you need here is a substantial amount of coverage for the releases to really show that there's any encyclopedic merit in us having a list of everything this company has released. As far as being a featured list candidate, being a candidate for something doesn't really mean that it would automatically belong on Wikipedia. I'll also note that the Criterion Collection is far, far more notable than this small, relatively unremarkable line of DVDs and that the list page has much more data in there to really justify an article and the DVDs in that set likely have enough coverage to really back up notability for a list page. I still maintain, however, that there's not much encyclopedic value in listing every release made by any particular company or product line. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just published yesterday Sight and Sound's The best DVDs and Blu-rays of 2015 has nearly every critic listing a Masters of Cinema release as one of their releases of the year for 2015. I don't think that would be the case if they truly were a "relatively unremarkable line of DVDs". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give it one last shot to gain a better consensus Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable rerelease stuff. No independent coverage of signidficnce. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "Eureka’s groundbreaking Masters Of Cinema label, often described as the UK’s answer to the Criterion imprint", or this from Home Cinema Choice? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep They can be defended as the UK/European equivalent of Criterion. They release definitive versions of established classics and more obscure titles. Releases often include for example multiple cuts/scores/frame ratios and new extra's and commentaries. They are highly esteemed and often feature in lists of best releases of the year ^[1]^[2]^[3] Holsheimer (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rob Sinden and Holsheimer. This is not an amateurish list, but one that required a considerable expenditure of time and effort, resulting in a well-organized compendium of key titles in world cinema, which are undoubtedly of considerable practical as well as personal value to anyone interested in film. The specific availability of these iconic productions, along with the chronology of their release and other details, more than justifies this list's continued existence. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 10:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Masters of Cinema do not rerelease stuff non-notably. They receive regular independant coverage, being in Sight & Sound, Whatculture, The Guardian, or HomeCinema Choice. They frequently end up in the top lists for best releases of the year (Sight & Sound, DVD Beaver, blu-ray.com). This list is the same type of list Criterion has of their releases, with release dates and video format availibility. This lists helps videophiles and cinephiles having a direct access to the release dates, the number of titles the label released and the ones that are OOP, allowing for an easy grasp of the size of the labels and for an easy comparison with other independant labels. They received specific coverage for their releases of Cabinet of Dr Caligari and Metropolis on Home Cinema Choice and MovieMail. The current main producer there has also been interviewed in Summer 2015 for a French website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EECE:FF70:DCA7:D658:C0B:985E (talk) 07:32, 28 January 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 List of telecom companies in India. (non-admin closure) sst✈ ^(speak now) 01:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangalore telecom companies[edit]

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

Redundant list which is not needed. These can be mentioned in List of telecom companies in India. No use of having the same list of operators being mentioned in every article on every place. Do not see any reason as to why it should have a stand-alone article. If anything is to be mentioned then it can be mentioned in the main list. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTDIR. a national list is acceptable but a by city list is not necessary. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as duplicative and unnecessary article. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of telecom companies in India, which the nominator also suggests. This would be easier than deleting the article and hoping that someone will eventually come along and add this content to the merge target article at some undetermined time. A merge will significantly improve the merge target article, as per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of telecom companies in India, as this seems beneficial and helpful but still questionable for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 05:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of telecom companies in India. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Poulton[edit]

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

Previous AFD was "no consensus" - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonia Poulton. Since then there have been no positive reasons made for keeping this article - see talk page discussion - Talk:Sonia Poulton. Her credibility as a notable journalist is dubious. Anybody can call themselves a journalist. Many others with at least as much credibility don't have Wikipedia entries.--Penbat (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent coverage of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half a dozen opinion pieces in the Daily Mail plus a few appearances as a daytime TV guest don't make this person sufficiently noteworthy to have a dedicated page, especially when far more noteworthy journalists have equal or less space dedicated to them. I'll happily list a few examples if required. I would settle for a much smaller page, but I suspect that her supporters would pad it out with waffle again to make her look more important than she is. Wikipedia is not a free marketing tool for self-promoters. --TuringBox (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, sources found. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rishab Shetty[edit]

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

No reliable sources, only link is a brief mention on IMDB (not a reliable source and not valid to establish notability, see WP:RS/IMDB) fails ~~both~~ the notability criteria for actors ~~and our general notability criteria~~. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 12:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC, albeit on the weaker side. Source examples include, but are not limited to: ^[1], ^[2], ^[3], ^[4], ^[5]. Importantly, note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Making Ricky". The New Indian Express.
^ "Ricky Review: Rishab's Debut Lives up to its Promise". The New Indian Express.
^ "Some Vedane and Some Bhavane for Rishab Shetty". The Times of India.
^ "Rishab Shetty now turns costume designer for Rikki". The Times of India.
^ "Will Haripriya get an award for her performance in 'Ricky'?". Daily News and Analysis. 12 October 2015.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you @Northamerica1000: I agree that the sources you pointed out do establish the notability of this BLP. Since the next issue was verifiability I sourced what I could in the article and tagged the rest. Even if the information that requires citation is eliminated the article would still be a viable stub, so I change my vote to keep. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for essentially withdrawing your nomination. Well done. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: "Rishab Shetty"

Keep as a brand new article wished deleted six minutes after being authored and while undergoing active editing. Shame. We have a suitable stub BLP whose topic meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (thanks Northamerica1000 for sharing the obvious and being pro-active). The nominator and SwisterTwister should remember that articles are not to be judged per appearance or per being new or per being originally poorly sourced, as topic notability is to be determined through sources being available, used or not. A lack of WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPATIENCE with brand new contributions is never helpful. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:30, 29 January 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 by Jimfbleak, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How to pass the AWS Architect Solutions Associate Exam in first attempt?[edit]

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

Wikipedia does not meet the style is an orphan, and there is no precise definition. I'm Lukas! --Talk 11:08, 22 January 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. Consensus is that the WP:BLP problems with this list require its deletion. While it is recognized that perhaps some of these issues could be remedied through editing, the participants of this discussion do not, on the whole, believe that this is practicable or sufficient. Sandstein 09:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with autism spectrum disorders[edit]

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

This was kept in 2007, but much has changed since then, especially around WP:BLP. The core problem with this list lies in the difference between a list and a category(of which it is substantially duplicative, incidentally). The difference lies in the text accompanying the name. A category just has names, whereas this list frequently includes "perpetrator of..." or some such, linking the person to a crime. Any dispassionate observer reading this list will be likely to notice that a substantial minority, well beyond what could be expected by chance, are criminals of one sort or another. The result is to give a misleading (and yes it is misleading: research clearly shows no link between ASD and violent crime) impression that people with ASD are dangerous. There's another problem in that some of the diagnoses are weak or speculative, but the core issue is that it is virtually impossible to provide a cited source and rubric without giving this false impression. So I think this list should go and we should leave it with the categories. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, inherently WP:BLP-dangerous and people are being added with limited checks, balances, and accountability. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
leaning Delete as impossible to be accurate on. Realisitically should be limited to medical Reliable Sources...but this would eliminate about 95% of entries...meaning it was likely to be incomplete. I also question the reliablility of diagnoses appearing in print. In summary, however you ubse sources, the article is likely to be incorrect to the point of being misleading and hence worse than if no such article existed. And then throw in BLP issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 12:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is restricted to notable people, so it has reasonable inclusion criteria, and a lot of care has been taken to provide refs for each entry. A few of these may be non-reliable but in the main I think they're OK. If a person is indicated in reliable sources to have one of these conditions, or has themselves acknowledged this, I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in Wikipedia. The article itself makes no mention of a link between ASD and crime, and only mentions criminal activity when the person is notable because of a crime they committed. Neiltonks (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the autistic spectrum for the first nomination. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing the nominator's rationale. I don't know whether we should keep this list, or not, but there's a fundamental problem with the nomination statement: someone's bound to take the category to CFD at some point, and the regulars of course will scream "it's not defining!" and delete the category. Long-term, if we want to have a page that serves as a collection of articles about people with autism spectrum disorders, it needs to be in mainspace. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend Please explain CFD. I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, but I had a role in initiating this discussion, so I would like to understand. Thanks. Galerita (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend Gotcha, CFD = "consider for deletion" , and the category has the same issues as the list.Galerita (talk) 02:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is one of many WP lists and is arguably governed by the many additional WP rules, policies, guidelines and templates. In my opinion, any such list could be condemned similarly by those who claim merely that a subject’s inclusion is harmful to others so listed. In my quick review of such rules, policies, guidelines and templates, the overriding rules-of-thumb appear, of course, to be the notability of the subjects (which, if they enjoy WP articles, has been largely determined) and the reliability of best-source material. The descriptive phrases added to most of the subjects that are included in the list in question appear near-verbatim at the subjects’ own articles. Of course, such descriptions may be edited to avoid intentional or unintentional bias, but should probably be edited in both stand-alone articles and the list in question. If a descriptive phrase isn’t biased for one use, it wouldn’t likely be biased for both. I see no reason to delete this one of many WP lists which routinely serve WP users well as a search aid in pointing them to desired content in the quickest and simplest ways possible. 2001:558:6008:3B:70E8:5D7:EAC:B6E2 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to create overall bias by gathering accurate descriptions from individual articles. From WP:COATRACK, the "article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subjects" (emphasis added).Galerita (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the list is biased towards violent criminals, the solution is to add other notable individuals, not delete everything. Even if the list in its present form violates WP:NPOV, it should be changed, not deleted. It's clearly possible to create such a list in compliance with NPOV, as evidenced by List of HIV-positive individuals and plenty of others. I don't see how the article in its present form could possibly violate WP:BLP since that only applies to individuals, not whole large groups of people, and none of the information about any individuals mentioned is incorrect - their crimes and diagnosis are both well-sourced. Whether it fairly portrays ASD as a whole is more debatable, but that's a NPOV issue, not a BLP issue. Smartyllama (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your point on HIV is a strawman argument, HIV is a definitive test. A diagnosis on the autism spectrum is not. The fall of pmpei (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A solution might also involve removing listings with garbage sources, such as Christopher Harper-Mercer, which you want included on grounds that his MOTHER once said he had Asperger's. Yah, you're actually pretty good evidence for deleting this garbage magnet, to remove the temptation to fill it with this sort of nonsense. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I worry about citations of this type too, but a mother is in a position to know someone's medical history. Whether she represents it truthfully during a criminal prosecution is another question that can't be answered either way without additional sources to draw on. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so basically you don't understand sourcing requirements, you don't understand BLP policy, you don't understand basic standards of proof, and you don't understand, apparently, basic standards of human decency. So go away, you're supremely unqualified to to commenting here. --Calton | Talk 09:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about if I don't, and you check your attitude? 50.185.134.48 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suffer fools gladly, so hey, it sucks to be you. Remaining ignorant is your choice, but it certainly doesn't help discussion when you spout misinformation. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion are irrelevant to this AfD and should be handled via the open RfC on the article's talk page. Regardless of whether the article in its current form violates WP:BLP, it is obvious that it is possible for a version to exist which doesn't, as evidenced by List of HIV-positive individuals among numerous other ones. Hence any possible BLP violations are irrelevant to this AfD. Smartyllama (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...the solution is to add other notable individuals". Again not a WP:TAG, but there are strong selection biases in the preparation of a list of this kind, which is why it violates WP:COAT. One such selection bias there are few ways to get public access to a verifiable ASD diagnosis. Court records are one of the few ways. Hence the list is top heavy with criminals. I don't think it will be possible to prepare an unbiased list from publicly available data.Galerita (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect this issue is covered by WP:BIAS#Availability of sources may cause bias as well as other points made on that page. (CAN SOMEONE HELP ME CREATE LINKS TO SUBSECTIONS).Galerita (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link above. In the future, use a # sign in between the title and the section/subsection. You only need to do it for the deepest subsection you want, as shown above. As for your actual point, the policy you cited says such articles should be improved, not deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being on the autism spectrum is a positive cultural identity for some people. There are some health variations that people claim as a source of pride, especially when there can be cultural pressure to isolate and shame people for being different. The article might be renamed to something like "People who identify as being AS" if that helps address BLP concerns of this list being used in a negative way, but for the sake of those who publicize their own AS as part of their identity there is no reason to treat that differently from other notable personal traits. I do think the word "disorder" should be removed from the title. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great reason for a category, shit reason for a list of criminals tarring the innocent with the same brush. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no. Openly legitimizing amateur diagnosis and "X-Men" conceptions of autism will not solve any problem with this list. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing he didn't do that, then. What would solve problems with this list would be to set it on fire and bulldoze the ashes. --Calton | Talk 09:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Surely The "positive cultural identity" will be completely swamped by distressed individuals with ASD finding they are in the company of serial killers. The article probably will be harmful. I suspect there is no WP:INJURIOUS tag, but maybe there should be. Galerita (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Blue Rasberry comments--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"per" !votes are considered arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. WP:PERX. Mkdw ^talk 23:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in that case... "autism spectrum is a positive cultural identity for some people. There are some health variations that people claim as a source of pride" , I agree w/ this statement[19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even in the cases where references mention ASD, unless those references are reliable medical sources or cite such sources then this list is very close to libel. There are entries in this list that do not mention ASD, such as this. Given that ASD is still not a clear syndrome and cannot be tested (unlike diabetes or epilepsy) this list seems like a really bad ideal. LaMona (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extraordinary and unreasonable sourcing standard. When someone very close to an individual has stated in print that they have a medical condition, there is no requirement that that they furnish medical documents proving it. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, there there has to be the slightest shred of evidence that a person making a diagnosis is actually qualified to diagnose medical conditions. If you think "The University of Google" is a qualification, you're not qualified to edit here. --Calton | Talk 09:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they were the ones making the diagnosis as opposed to noting it? The doctors themselves can't actually comment due to doctor-patient confidentiality. The best we can have is a family member or the individual themselves saying they were diagnosed. And if we're not going to allow that, then we can't allow any other mention of any medical diagnosis in any other article, which is ridiculous. When articles mention so-and-so was diagnosed with cancer in whatever year, it is obvious they did not diagnose themselves. We don't need a reference quoting their doctor. A citation that the individual or a family member says they were diagnosed with cancer is sufficient. ASD should have the same standard, and I don't see why list articles should be held to any different citation standards than the articles about the individual themselves. Smartyllama (talk) 14:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doubling down on a flimsy rationale to skirt basic sourcing policy is not really your best bet, son. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any entry on the list that is cited to "The University of Google"? I didn't think so. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually understand my comment and to whom I was referring> No, I didn't think so. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure if this list should be deleted or not but I'm nervous about editors adding individuals where the sources used are highly speculative. WP:BLP outlines community responsibilities to not to include, even well sourced material, if an individual's notability stems from being victimized by another's actions. While not enforceable, I would want to see the list adhere to only individuals who they themselves have acknowledged and publicly released this information about themselves -- or if it's been the heavy subject medical documentation. Mkdw ^talk 23:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very selective and harmful BLP violation, implying that persons on the autism spectrum are very likely to become "perpetrators" of murder, financial crime, or support for terrorism. The word "perpetrator" appears about 30 times. Someone has selectively added the names of persons in the news for crimes when a claim was made they were autistic or had aspergers. There may be a selection bias in that criminal defendants find a defense psychiatrist to tender an autism or asperger diagnosis to try and get a lower sentence, whereas few entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley or academic stars see a benefit to obtaining and publicizing the same diagnosis. Some had brain damage as children, so an autism diagnosis is unlikely. Many famous persons who did great good and are equally speculated to be on the autism spectrum are omitted. When I called for keeping it in the 2007 AFD, the word "perpetrator" did not appear in the article. Edison (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot commit a "BLP violation" against an unmentioned person by printing sourced claims about other people. That's a bizarre interpretation. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The number of infamous individuals included in this questioned WP article are also the subjects (or other included individuals) of their own stand-alone WP articles in the same way that the various autistic American Idol contestants are included; in fact, WP itself is where many of the newest additions of infamous subjects were discovered (a WP list being a list of WP articles, after all). I don't remember seeing any concerns published about deleting the infamous subjects' autism at the original WP articles, so why publish such concerns now? 2001:558:6008:3B:ED21:FCAC:1B9F:C0B4 (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a reliable source that these people who did great good have ASD, then add them. If you don't, that's speculation and original research and it doesn't belong here. As is saying someone with a reliably sourced diagnosis of ASD must not have it because of childhood brain damage or low IQ or whatever. Smartyllama (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely the word "perpetrator" only appears 7 times on my most recent reading. It was much more frequent when I first read the article.Galerita (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To quote a Talk page comment from 2014, this is "[a] list of people who might have had a poorly defined condition". It's not just that it's subject to abuse, it's ALREADY being subject to abuse, given the heavy weighting to criminals and evil-doers. And then there's the sad spectacle of the editor arguing for inclusion of a subject on grounds that the subject's MOTHER had said so on an online forum, and that she's more reliable at diagnosing a poorly understand medical condition than, say, actual doctors. --Calton | Talk 01:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a poorly defined condition, but it's medically recognized. A "diagnosis" publicized by someone's mother (or defense attorney) might be an expert diagnosis or it might not. I'm always glad to knock down an amateur diagnosis when I find evidence, but until then one has to defer to the best public information available. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have it backwards: in a BLP -- or, ideally, life in general -- the burden of proof is not on DISPROVING a diagnosis and removing it, it's on proving it before adding. So it's confused editors like you who are providing evidence for the deletion of garbage magnet. --Calton | Talk 09:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have it wrong. BLP doesn't require that anything be PROVED, whatever that may involve. It requires reliable sources. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem easily confused by not only about Wikipedia standards and policies, but also basic English words and simple logic. Hint: what is the purpose of the reliable source? And bonus points for the question-begging about reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 08:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could easily be open to abuse on a WP:BLP front - some of the existing references are rather weak. Unless one is going to insist on WP:MEDRS references only. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 02:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Literally every article on Wikipedia is "open" to BLP violations. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As you will see from the edit history, I have been monitoring this page for a while. I have had many concerns about its content, but never its purpose. It is one of many lists dual to a category, and it is useful for keeping track of citations to verify that autism spectrum diagnosis exists. Without it, verifying the related categories would be more difficult. If the descriptions are a source of conflict, that be worked on without deleting the list. If you believe any items on the list are poorly sourced as to the diagnosis, please point them out to me on my talk page, since what I mainly do is remove such items. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete damaging to people with very floppy refs, besides, where is the page for people with ingrown toe nails?

The fall of pmpei (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Further to the point on an argument elsewhere on this page. Using a court document as evidence of a diagnoses is flawed . A prosecutor or defense lawyer will select and discount a psychiatrist and thus a diagnosis for their own purpose. The fall of pmpei (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A defined list with clear inclusion criteria all backed up with reliable sources. The BLP note is a red-herring, as unsourced/poorly sourced enteries can be removed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha,it is very well recorded that Martin Bryant has a measured IQ of 66 yet he still keeps turning up on this page The fall of pmpei (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At the very least, it should be renamed to remove "disorder" from the title, and be restricted to people who self-identify in such a way, as i believe we have now done with those other potentially disruptive descriptors, religions; cheers, Lindsay^Hello 13:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A proposal was made a while back to move this page to List of individuals on the autistic spectrum. No consensus was reached. I have no objection to such a move. Also, at least in the United States, any primary medical sources would be subject to doctor-patient confidentiality and thus impossible to obtain. If the individual or a family member says they were diagnosed with ASD, that should be sufficient, since it's the best we're going to get. Smartyllama (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Smartyllama (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entire idea of Wikipedia.org is reliant on the best, most reputable, reported source material. I agree that the idea of requiring diagnostic proof to pursue creating an article about an autistic individual, or expanding an existing article to include a mention of autism, is a bridge too far for the likes of WP. Making such a requirement would be akin to demanding a WP administrative review of one's diagnostic "papers." I would love to see the WP editor who dares try making such a demand of Daryl Hannah or John Elder Robison. All I could say is "good luck with that." Even today, some diagnoses are made verbally to an individual. Yes, the individuals known to a subject (including family, friends, co-workers and the occasional news reporter) are reasonable substitutions for subjects themselves. I appreciated the comparison to the WP article List of HIV-positive individuals. The debated conditions within this questioned article are almost exactly identical to the HIV article; and yet, the HIV article remains a good direction to good biographical articles. Let's stop debating angels, pinheads and such. 2001:558:6008:3B:ED21:FCAC:1B9F:C0B4 (talk) 15:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"...primary medical sources would be subject to doctor-patient confidentiality and thus impossible to obtain." With the exception of court records, which is one reason for the selection bias towards criminals and consequent violation of WP:COAT.Galerita (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I don't think it is at all helpful to debate the deletion of this list in terms of objections to some outlier items on it. That is a content dispute, to be resolved through other processes. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LaMona and Casliber's point that it is almost impossible to be accurate about diagnoses, and the unreliabilty of thise appearing in print. Edison's also makes a good point regarding possible "selection bias in that criminal defendants find a defense psychiatrist to tender an autism or asperger diagnosis to try and get a lower sentence". --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 22:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy of diagnoses can be checked case-by-case. Which I do, I've dug into dozens of public diagnosis reports to get close to the source and what they specifically said. Unfortunately sometimes complete details aren't available and a press reporter has to be taken at their word, which is permitted. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, journalists are reliable sources for medical diagnoses. Oh wait, they're not, however convenient it is for you. --Calton | Talk 08:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can be reliable reporters of diagnoses. That's what journalists do, Jack. They report things that other people are doing. Perhaps you should educate yourself on the concept. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've confused reporters with stenographers, so it's not me who needs the education. Hint: I've actually worked as a reporter, so I've seen the sausage being made. --Calton | Talk 07:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

50.185.134.48, journalists are not reliable sources for medical diagnoses, and your WP:OR is not allowed either. Softlavender (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! So news reports are never to be cited in Wikipedia for verification and even looking for published sources on a claim constitutes "original research"! There won't be much left of Wikipedia under that interpretation. 50.185.134.48 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you think of the merits of the AfD on other grounds, to say news reports are not reliable sources contradicts WP:NEWSORG and would render virtually any mention of a medical diagnosis "unreliable." From WP:NEWSORG - ""News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact" Unless you want to scrub every mention of any medical diagnosis from every single Wikipedia article, that's clearly taking this too far. I can see some merits for deleting this article, but that goes way, way too far. Smartyllama (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a violation of WP:COATRACK. It focuses too much on people with ASD who have committed crimes, and hence creates the impression that ASD is causal in those crimes, when it is not. To quote from WP:COATRACK, the "article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." The context of WP:COATRACK is that subject is the subject of the article, not necessarily an individual person.Galerita (talk) 10:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've given many other reasons for deletion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_people_with_autism_spectrum_disorders#RFC and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_Content.2F3RR_and_Lack_of_civility_on_List_of_people_with_autism_spectrum_disorders (How do I tag these???). Most are already covered above. I note particularly the potential for psychological harm and the selection bias.Galerita (talk) 11:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And COATRACK is grounds for rewriting the article, not deleting it entirely. If you feel the article violates COATRACK and should be rewritten, then that belongs in the RfC, not an AfD discussion. As long as it's possible for a version of this article to exist which doesn't violate COATRACK, which it obviously is as evidenced by similar lists, the article should be rewritten, not deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama that was my original view, but from WP:COATRACK, "Editors are NOT REQUIRED to fill out the article so that more time is spent on non-biased matters in order to keep bias content. Instead, editors may fix an article by balancing it out with more facts but are in NO WAY required to do so." (My emphasis). The effort required to balance the level of existing bias is huge. I attempted to do so, but was reverted at each attempt. After consideration, particularly of the nature of the WP:BIAS, restoration of balance is impossible. Deletion is the only reasonable option. The systemic bias (WP:BIAS) is created in particularly by the requirement for a verifiable diagnosis - court records being one of the few sources - and the requirement that of WP:LIST that lists exclude the content required to ameliorate that bias (not possible anyway in my view). I also suspect an an editor has shown little regard for WP:NPOV. Each of these alone is sufficient grounds for deletion.Galerita (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The anon above (50.185.134.48) has done a pretty good job at fixing it. I'm the one who reverted you and I have no problem with his removals. One bad editor editing an article is not sufficient grounds to delete it. Otherwise, anyone could vandalize an article they didn't like and get it deleted just to stop them. And WP:COATRACK still isn't grounds for deletion. Read the page again. Where does it ever say such pages should be deleted? Smartyllama (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The list does not "focus" on people who have committed crimes. It lists them. The descriptions are long enough to accurately state what they did and where they stand legally. If you think you can make them shorter, go ahead. The ongoing complaints of BLP, coatracking and bias increasingly look to me like a way of sneaking censorship in through the back door. The set of people diagnosed with ASD includes some criminals, whether one likes it or not. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a blog, newspaper or current affairs show, where you can publish and be damned. If censorship is removing material that is not WP:NPOV, contains WP:BIAS or in some other way violates WP:5P, then all editing is censorship. By its nature this page has serious WP:BLP and WP:BIAS issues. A list of ASD people that largely consists of criminals, where the crime and the ASD are unrelated is a seriously biased portrayal of people with ASD. Galerita (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew what fraction of criminals on a list of medically diagnosed individuals makes the list POV. 50.185.134.48 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I wondered myself since I work in diagnosis of medical conditions, notably cancer, which is more clear cut (but still imperfect). Some of the issues:

diagnosis of psychiatric/psychological conditions is inherently inaccurate and these conditions are poorly defined in the first place. Psychiatric conditions have a huge overlap in symptoms. For example many personality disorders, such as BPD, have autistic traits (http://aspertypical.com/2013/06/12/the-borderline-of-aspergers-the-similarities-between-borderline-personality-disorder-and-autism/).
most people with ASD would not seek diagnosis. Many would not even suspect they have the condition.
Diagnosis of a medical condition is only useful if it achieves something - leads to a treatment; explains behaviour; generates sympathy (maybe in court); helps acceptance within a family; etc. There may be pressure to get a diagnosis to achieve leniency in a court case.
Aspergers has been a fad with signs of over-diagnosis.
Many psychiatric conditions are co-morbid with ASD, especially depression, anxiety, bipolar, ADHD and OCD. This is unclear with personality disorders, partly due to an overlap of symptoms. You are born with ASD, whereas personality disorders develop over time often as a result of abuse, neglect, etc. You could hypothesise someone with ASD would be more likely to be neglected & abused and so develop a personality disorder. It would be just that; an untested hypothesis.
There is research on the link between ASD and violence/psychopathy (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201402/aspergers-disorder-vs-psychopathy). Serious violent behaviour does NOT appear to be more common among people with ASD. In violent people with ASD, a probable comorbid condition linked to violence is usually present that would explain the violence (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/shadow-boxing/201402/aspergers-disorder-vs-psychopathy).
It's not my field of medical research, but I doubt a consensus view among experts is available at the moment. It's hard enough getting a consensus in cancer diagnosis.Galerita (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP concerns listed above, and being diagnosed with autism is not a defining trait for many of the people listed to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- incurable BLP problems make this article unsuitable for Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 07:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The word "perpetrator" no longer appears on this page thanks to cleanup by an anon. Several of the entries have been removed, those with reliable sources such as Adam Lanza were rephrased. Interestingly, the Lanza source specifically discredits any link between ASD and violence. Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - The most common reasons for deletion look to be WP:BLP grounds. If deletion isn't supposed to be based on the current composition of a list, if all Wikipedia articles requires strong sources for BLPs, if reliable sources could be required for every addition, and if everybody on the list is a notable person, I don't understand what the argument is. We don't delete things because people could be added inappropriately or because it could be abused. And if that's all it takes to be deleted, what's going on with every page at Category:People with personality disorders, Category:Lists of people with disabilities, and even some of Category:Lists of people by medical condition? If the BLP issue is utterly unavoidable, should those other pages be deleted? Could someone summarize the BLP issue that looks to be spread over too many pages for those of us who are thus far uninvolved? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the BLP issues that ought to be clear as day from the first paragraph of the article. "This is a list of notable individuals who have been diagnosed with (a) condition on the autism spectrum ... even a formal diagnosis cannot be taken as certain proof that person has (such a) condition." And that's without the flaky referencing. Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as others have said, BLP is a major problem - and so is lack of verifiability in too many cases. We should also be concerned about many other List of people with <some disease or other> - they all seem pretty dubious. Autism is of special concern because it's a spectrum condition - and many laypersons are confused about what that truly means. High-functioning aspergers' is a very different kettle of fish than profound Austim and lumping people together on a list is highly dubious. SteveBaker (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. There is, quite literally, no redeeming value to maintaining such a list on the project. It has huge potential to cause major WP:BLP issues, which combined with the inherent verifiability concerns raised multiple times above, make this a fairly straightforward call, in my view. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 22:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:COATRACK of sheer speculation, not backed up by any RS medical diagnosis evidence. Violates all kinds of WP policies/guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe the editing community has the moral obligation to identify situations where increased risks to WP:BLP violations are prevalent and to impose community solutions to the problem. At the top of BLP it states, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, yet with very high profile controversial individuals, we permanently semi protect the page because there is a threshold where WP:IAR must be applied. I believe in this case the potential harm to individuals outweighs the value and need for this list to exist as part of this encyclopedia. Lists also require the establishment of these individuals as a group whereas they're being thrown together at the discretion of editorial judgement, not third party publications. Mkdw ^talk 06:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mkdw. I made a comment above about the possibility of "...distressed individuals with ASD finding they are in the company of serial killers. The article probably will be harmful. I suspect there is no WP:INJURIOUS tag, but maybe there should be." (My original tag has been lost. I've added another.) The potential harms are at least threefold:

1) Criminals included in the list. OK, they've lost certain rights so let's ignore them for this discussion.

2) Non-criminal persons included in a list that disproportionately includes criminals.

3) Members of the public with ASD browsing the list.

The "possibility of harm to living subjects" is a more complex issue in this instance that it might normally be. Galerita (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not just a BLP nightmare waiting to happen (or, really, already happening) but also fraught with other problems, from COATRACK to UNDUE, by way of SYNTH. The suggestion is there, much too strongly, that the one (autism) has something to do with the other (crime). Never mind that the sourcing for such lists (and the associated biographical articles) is all too frequently too weak to make such suggested charges stick. No. Mkdw, above, says it quite well, as do Casliber, Stifle...
Question. Is a diagnosis obtained for the purposes of a court case a WP:PRIMARY issue? See also WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I don't understand the importance of the primary/secondary/tertiary source issue. Can someone point me to a good discussion of the reasoning. Galerita (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like some further clarification on what exactly is an acceptable source for a medical diagnosis in general, since Softlavender seemed to say above news reports weren't reliable, which would render 99 percent of reported medical diagnoses on Wikipedia (and not just ASD) unreliable. Perhaps Softlavender can explain himself here. Smartyllama (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Psychiatric diagnoses are somewhat different to many others in medicine in that they have no investigations to prove them. Unlike, say, diabetes, asthma or cancer, they rely on a clinician's interpretation of a set of symptoms. Problem is, even among qualified psychiatrists there will be considerable diversity in opinion, which gets bigger when one adds general medical doctors, psychologists and self-diagnosis. You'll get doctors that doubt the existence or validity of one condition and others saying it's vastly underdiagnosed. Also, psychiatric diagnoses have been used alot in the legal system. I wonder if we have a page on that actually.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, if a news source says "Person X was diagnosed with Condition Y" then it's a reliable source for the claim that they were, in fact, diagnosed, regardless of the validity of said diagnosis. Controversy over the validity of said diagnoses can be discussed in the main article for the condition rather than mentioned in every single article that mentions anyone was diagnosed. While I'm starting to see articles against this comprehensive list, an ASD diagnosis should still be mentioned in the main article for the individual where relevant and reliably sourced, and to claim news articles aren't reliable sources even for that makes me doubt what exactly would be a reliable source. Smartyllama (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News articles from a reliable source (many of these aren't) would be a source for someone being diagnosed. However, as the article itself says, "even a formal diagnosis cannot be taken as certain proof that person has (such a) condition". Therefore, given that the article is titled List of people with autism spectrum disorders, not List of people that may or may not at some point have been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder or something similar, it's simply original research, and hence useless. Laura Jamieson (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Smartyllama (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Hallward's Ghost. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a huge BLP problem and quite likely a coatrack being used to push an agenda. If there were any compelling value in this list other than a suitably maintained category, I might have a bit more hesitation, but the project won't lose anything much if this page goes away. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:50, 30 January 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. There is consensus that there is insufficent reliable sourcing available to meet notability guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WardrobeTrendsFashion[edit]

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

Non-notable online portal sourced almost entirely to press releases. I can't find significant coverage in Singaporean media, such as The Straits Times or Today Online. The award does not seem significant. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was speedy deleted twice before under Wardrobe Trends Fashion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear NinjaRobotPirate,

Thanks for being vigilance in spotting that there wasn't enough media coverage references cited previously in the first cut.

I've updated the page itself with more coverage.

However, here is the list of notable coverage within local media:

The statistics released by Twitter that WardrobeTrendsFashion is Number One in Singapore for Twitter followers^[1] was also featured on The Straits Times online on 10 Dec 2014^[2], and on Straits Times print on 11 Dec 2014, page A10.
In December 2014, The New Paper followed up with a full-page interview with WardrobeTrendsFashion's founder, Herbert Sim, which was republished on AsiaOne^[3].
In August 2014, Mypaper ran a full-page featured story with WardrobeTrendsFashion's founder, Herbert Sim^[4].
In July 2012, WardrobeTrendsFashion's editor-in-chief, Vanessa Emily, had a 1-page feature on Cosmopolitan (magazine) Singapore — July 2012 issue^[5].
In April 2012, WardrobeTrendsFashion was featured on 8 Days (Magazine) — Issue 1123^[6].

The reason for being 'speedy deleted twice' a few years ago was prior to all these new media coverage, and new collaborations and syndication partnerships that were newly forged.

Hope this clarifies. Appreciate if you can advise if this meets the notability requirements, and the next steps to proceed. Thanks!

Best regards, (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC+08:00)

References

^ Twitter, Singapore (11 December 2014). "Unveiling the top 20 most followed Singaporean accounts on Twitter in 2014. Follow them today! 2014.Twitter.com". Twitter. Retrieved 25 January 2016. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)
^ Daryl, Chin (10 December 2014). "The Straits Times tops Twitter's list for news in Singapore". AsiaOne. Retrieved 25 January 2016.
^ Lakeisha, Leo (25 December 2014). "They top online rankings". AsiaOne. Retrieved 25 January 2016.
^ Jacqueline, Woo (13 August 2014). "Degree improved his prospects". My Paper. Retrieved 25 January 2016.
^ "WardrobeTrendsFashion Featured On Cosmopolitan Singapore July 2012". WardrobeTrendsFashion. 14 June 2012. Retrieved 25 January 2016.
^ "WardrobeTrendsFashion Featured On 8 Days (Magazine)". The Business Journals. 24 April 2012. Retrieved 25 January 2016.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See WP:BOMBARD. These are basically press releases, trivial mentions, and interviews. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I took a look at all references in the article and also performed my own search. Unfortunately, there is nothing in-depth that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and the rest are not considered WP:RS - the company website and press releases. With that being said, this fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost everything in the first few pages of Google search results is self-generated PR or social networking content. One of the few independent articles is [20], and that's about the company using fake stock photos for their fake writers. Plus, there's a COI issue, an SPA issue, and the main editor involved is associated closely enough with the CEO to have uploaded a picture of the CEO (File:Photo of Herbert Sim.jpg) as "own work". The article has also been deleted twice already under the name Wardrobe Trends Fashion. John Nagle (talk) 05:19, 27 January 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. With a stern reminder that AfD is not a venue for personal attacks, the sorting out of vendettas and grudges, and other chicanery. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major cricket[edit]

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

Article was previous deleted here, as there is no evidence that the term actually exists outside of Wikipedia, rather the claim is made that it is a term invented by editors for their personal convenience. It is undoubtedly OR. This was the clear consensus at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Major_cricket

Discussion here reveals that a significant proportion of editors are aware that the term is "it seems to solve the problem of there being no universal term by "inventing a term that has never really been used or reliably fixed in meaning" and are uncomfortable with it being referenced in cricket articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Discussion_re_NCRIC_and_CRIN

Since then the supporting author has added several citations, which I will now discuss:

1 and 2 are internal citations only.

3 is not a link, and could say anything: I own a copy of Birley and could not find any use of the term "major cricket" in it at all.

4 does not load

5 loads, but a search of the page reveals no usage of the word "major".

6, 7, and 8 contain no links.

9 does not load

10 refers to "major teams" but not "major cricket". In this case, "major" is of course a perfectly normal adjective that is synonymous with significant, prominent, or important. It is not a stand alone term.

11. is the same as 10. again "major teams" is simply a everyday grammatical construction, not a stand-alone term

12. refers to "major matches" but not major cricket. Again "major" in this sense is synonymous with significant.

13. also refers to major matches

14. refers to major cricket events. Here the major describes the events, not the cricket.

15. refers to major cricket tournaments, Here the word major refers to the tournament, not the cricket.

In summary, none of the citations provide evidence that supports the claim that "major cricket" is a standalone term with a specific meaning. In the majority of cases, the word "cricket" is either not even present, or the common, everyday adjective "major" is describing something else entirely - eg a team, a match or a tournament.

A google of the phrase "major cricket" reveals 63,800 results. In comparison "important cricket" reveals "23,000, "best cricket" reveals 421,000 results and "top cricket" reveals 180,000.

Py0alb (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Questions.

Why haven't you advised interested parties about this AfD?
Please explain what you mean in saying that citations 1 and 2 are "internal only". This statement makes no sense and is misleading. The citations are taken from guides published by the ACS which is a substantial source (same applies to citation 8).
Your comments about citations 3–5 are completely out of context. Those citations are there to support the information contained in the respective sentences, which are not about the term. They provide historical background. Your assertion re these three citations is therefore deliberately misleading.
I notice you have not made any comment about citation 8 (used twice) and perhaps you would like to do so? This citation alone proves SNG via WP:NCRIC. The rest enable compliance with WP:GNG.
Re your later points, we are not talking about "significant cricket", but about "major cricket". That is like saying that "first-class" is synonymous with "top-class". Both are terms in use, one officially, one unofficially. Synonyms are irrelevant.

Google results are inadmissible evidence. It is citations that count with the ACS references taking priority. Nothing "internal" about those at all. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The original version of this article was a stub without citations that was correctly deleted in 2011. Since then, the term has acquired wider usage and is often heard in discussions. A wider range of sources is now available and this article meets not only WP:NCRIC (and WP:CRIN), but also WP:GNG. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCRIC just mentions biographies so not sure how that applies and I don't see anything in WP:CRIN that this article meets (not sure that section has much relevance in a deletion discussions anyway). AIRcorn (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that none of the sources I've looked at uses the term "Major cricket" as an independent term. I made the same point immediately the article was recreated and raised the issue at the relevant wikiproject and received no comment about the use of the term. I tend to think that this is a made up term that's been used as a matter of convenience. In particular, the sources citing the "Major matches group" are entirely misleading - these matches refer only to international matches for example (which are coordinated above the national governing bodies) whereas the term, as we have it defined, is used to refer to any First Class match (or match which has later been given first class status), List A or T20 match. Quite clearly these sources do not define "major" in the same way we have it defined here. I note this specifically because these are "official" sources rather than, for example, media sources.

I would suggest a redirect to Forms of cricket in the first instance. There are, however, such a mess of articles similar to this in the cricket project that it would probably be beneficial for someone with time and patience to attempt to rationalise them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, could you please take the "mess of articles similar to this in the cricket project" to WT:CRIC and give us a list, or at least some of the main examples, so that we can consider what should be done? Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. re-direct to forms of cricket as Blue Square Thing suggests. Internal only: ie they simply link to other wikipedia pages that you yourself have edited. I did mention source 8 - there is no link so there is really nothing to comment on. "Its in a book I once read, trust me" is not a valid form of evidence.(Personal attack removed) "First-class cricket" is an official term with a specific meaning. "Major cricket" is simply a common adjective + a common noun, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary. Py0alb (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources. The ones I can access use the term "major" as a simple adjective, not as a common term used to describe a distinct form of cricket. It could easily be replace with "important"[21] [22] The article even starts off saying "Major cricket is a term with no official definition in cricket". As far as I can tell it is used here as a term of convenience to provide notability to early cricket games not covered by first-class cricket. The notability of this definition seems to rely on the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians(home page use of it. Unfortunately their sources that apparently use it are not readily available. In any case I am not sure they alone are significant enough to confer notability to this term if no one else (apart form us) has picked up on it. The use of "major" is not even in the titles which calls into question the significant part of WP:GNG. Leaning delete or redirect unless further evidence can be provided that this is a common term to describe distinct forms of cricket. AIRcorn (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – the original AfD eventually reached a fairly strong consensus that this was WP:NEO and WP:OR, and I don't believe anything has changed. There is definitely no reference anywhere to satisfy me that "major cricket" has been adopted in the four years since the previous AfD as a term with either a formal or a widely used conventional meaning encompassing the top non-international levels of each of the three forms of cricket. All of the content in this article which deals with the historical status of first-class cricket is already in first-class cricket, and sits much more appropriately there. Maybe redirect to forms of cricket. Aspirex (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serious points of order. In view of the fact that an admin has been obliged to remove a personal attack by the nominator and especially as the nominator has voted twice (entry also removed), I think it is fair to point out to all contributors that the nominator's behaviour in respect of the article is an ongoing topic at WP:ANI.

I would draw contributors' attention to statements made above by the nominator. He says of the first two citations that "they simply link to other wikipedia pages that you yourself have edited". This is absolutely untrue and is a deliberate attempt to undermine a reliable source by misleading readers. He goes on to say: ""Its in a book I once read, trust me" is not a valid form of evidence". That is a clear breach of WP:AGF as well as being completely out of line with the terms and conditions of WP:V, WP:RS and everything the site stands for in terms of secondary source verification. The nomination itself is seriously flawed in its total focus upon internet-based sources and its blatant attempt to belittle and dismiss book sources.

I propose that this nomination is closed now in order to be redrawn by one of Blue Square Thing, Aircorn or Aspirex who have all raised valid, constructive and reasoned arguments. As it stands, the current nomination is completely out of order. Jack | ^{talk page} 06:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think going back and starting again is necessary and I'm sure most people can see past the bluster and the shrillness to the GF which is, of course, behind all contributions (isn't it?). The core of the issue as I see it is that we have, in this article, information which is valid (and referenced) and that is useful to the project as a whole as the background for the decisions about which matches are notable... but that in order to assemble this article it's been thought necessary to do it under a term, "major cricket", that has very little currency or validity. For me therefore the issue is whether there is a place in another article – perhaps Forms of cricket or History of cricket – where this useful information could be merged pretty much wholesale so that it is available for consultation on questions of notability without having to be a standalone article under a doubtful title. I'll personally take some time to decide this and vote one way or the other: and I'm interested in other people's views. Maybe there's an obvious place for a merger; maybe this is the best way to encapsulate this information however awkward the title. Let's continue a debate (and AGF) rather than stopping and starting again. Johnlp (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator has pointed out, "major cricket" is not a standalone term. The word "major" is just another adjective used to imply the meaning of "important cricket" or "top-flight cricket" i.e., to distinguish professional-level cricket from lower forms of cricket such as club cricket and school cricket. - Dee 03 13:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is just another vendetta AfD against BlackJack so I'm voting to keep this article until cooler heads prevail! Also, if one does actually look at the sources there does appear be usage of "major cricket". But then Wikipedia's inconsistency with what rules apply when is staggering. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 04:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've no idea what this accusation refers to, and this comment is neither relevant nor constructive to this discussion, and in fact constitutes a borderline personal attack, so I would propose to strike this vote. Py0alb (talk) 10:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be frank, I entirely agree with MurderByDeadcopy and I would strike much of your input to this discussion and the article talk page. For example your woefully misguided statement that non-internet sources should be dismissed as books which someone vaguely remembers reading once upon a time. I see you have been reported to WP:ANI and I would suggest you heed the comments made there. GnGn (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non internet sources are fine, but as I said before, I have copies of several of the ones cited by the article author and they do not contain any reference to the term "major cricket" as a stand-alone term, so they're entirely inadmissible. The article lacks a single valid citation and fails WP:V on multiple counts. There is no logical solution here other than to delete. Py0alb (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Forms of cricket per Blue Square Thing. As per the nomination, I don't think this article is appropriately sourced to support the assertion that "major cricket" is a properly defined term in any sort of common usage. It is a convenient term, but nothing more I fear. Harrias ^talk 07:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite to alter focus. There is a need for an article like this to discuss and describe an area of cricket which is summarised in WP:NCRIC as a "match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". The title is a matter for discussion but would probably be similar to "Major cricket" anyway. Perhaps "Top-level cricket"? I don't know. My point is that, although BlackJack is unquestionably a fine editor, I believe he is looking in the wrong direction on this occasion because, as Blue Square Thing, Harrias and others are saying, this article is about the terminology and not about what major cricket actually is. The focus must not be a term which, as the article itself says, is unofficial, though it is most certainly a phrase I have heard frequently at matches in England. The article must discuss the difference between the major and minor levels of cricket with reference to the many global competitions which are designated, for want of a better word, "major".

The article is part way towards that goal in the passage about Indian cricket. That piece is sourced from the ACS and their "definition" should be taken very seriously, despite what the nominator wrongly claims to the contrary, as it carries far more weight than any of the online sources cited. I do not agree with the suggestion that Forms of cricket should be adapted to meet the purpose as it has its own precise purpose to describe all the many types of cricket whether they are organised or not. I believe the cricket project has missed a trick here because it needs something that explains the connection between first-class, limited overs and T20 with information of how these "highest level" forms are demonstrated globally. I am not an expert on cricket, though I am a great fan of the game (I attended about twenty "major matches" in England last summer), but I would be happy to attempt or at least commence the re-write. I would begin by removing the first sentence and adapting the second and third sentences to provide a new startpoint. The "Usage" section needs to be retitled and completely rewritten to focus on competitions and top-level matches organised outside competitions, for example tour matches.

May I respectfully suggest that this AfD is put on hold for the time being so that a re-write can commence. I do not believe there is any prohibition on editing the article while an AfD is current? I propose involving members of WP:CRIC including BlackJack himself if he is agreeable, though I notice he is currently taking a break. Closing admin, is that acceptable? Thank you. GnGn (talk) 10:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If such content is necessary, it should be included in Forms of Cricket. There is no place in an encyclopaedia for a term which, as has been established several times now, is one made up by Wikipedia editors for convenience. There is clearly no evidence forthcoming that the phrase "major cricket" exists as a stand-alone term, and as such, it does not warrant its own Wikipedia page. If you have some, bring it forward. Else the only possible course of action is to delete and re-direct. Py0alb (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Merge. The problem with this article is not its content, which provides useful background to the cricket world's classification of matches and which is duly referenced; it's the title, which indicates a currency for a phrase which really isn't used with any precision or frequency in wider cricket. If the article was renamed as, say, "Status of cricket matches", I suspect we wouldn't see any great difficulty with it. However, rather than re-create as a different standalone article, it is probably better to incorporate it as a section within an existing article, and I think it sits in History of cricket better than in Forms of cricket, since it is essentially about the historiography of cricket and the points at which different forms of the game were considered – for want of a better word – notable, sometimes retrospectively. I think deletion is the worst option: the information that's in this article is essential background for discussion on notability in cricket for matches, teams and individuals, and it should be somewhere within WP for reference. Discussion on WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN in other places has tended to focus on individuals, but I think we need somewhere in our history of cricket to plant the idea that our definitions of notability are rooted in the written history of the game, its matches and teams, where there is a very substantial measure of agreement between authorities from the present-day ACS going back through time to early chroniclers and reports. That's where this article is important: but not under this title. Johnlp (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to have stuff from here in the history article, although I think we'd probably want to think about tidying up the ways in which we talk about terms such as first-class cricket, list A etc... in a range of articles. Fwiw the closest I can come to a term similar to "major" is "official" - the ICC or ECB - I don't remember which off the top of my head - does define that. But it'd be a lousy title for an article. History seems as good a place as any, but then we need to get the other articles saying similar sorts of things as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if the content is to be moved then it should be into History of cricket, definitely not into Forms of cricket. GnGn (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any useful info. I like Johnlp's suggestion directly above. However, there is a larger problem here. As I read through this AFD, the issue of offline sources supposedly confirming this term was raised. I finally decided to look into it myself. Our college library doesn't have any of the offline sources, so I finally gave in and bought the Birley book on Kindle. I can unequivocally state that this term never appears in Birley--not on "p. 145" as falsely claimed in the current reference section, or anywhere else. In my view, this is a major issue, that needs dealt with firmly. Whoever placed that reference, lied about it's confirming that certain cricket teams had been referred to as "major cricket teams." As someone who depends greatly in my real world existence on the honesty of researchers and colleagues, my view is that such dissembling should be sanctionable. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 20:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think in incorporating it into History of cricket or wherever, we would need to check these things and also to omit any sections that are there apparently to bolster the current title, rather than for the insight that they give into the history of classification of matches. Johnlp (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I will leave such checking (other than on Birley, which I now own) up to others. I shelled out $14 for that book, and I'm unwilling to pay more to access the others. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, and I honestly think that for someone to have either given false citations, or to genuinely believed in good faith that this article was sufficiently cited, there are serious WP:COMPETENCE issues at stake here. Sanctions need to be taken. There is nothing wrong with off-line sources, but it does require us to be able to take the author's honesty at face value Py0alb (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read that reference as saying that Birley directly referred to "major cricket teams"; I read it as saying that on that page Birley provides a reference for the 1894 meeting that finally gave meaning to the term "first-class", which had been in unofficial use before. My copy of Birley (the 2013 paperback edition: I have it in front of me now) certainly has that meeting on that page. I think we should assume GF: if you remove the words "rated as major cricket teams: i.e.," from that sentence, it reads fine and the references are correct and appropriate. Johnlp (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth pointing out that at the top of page 145 of Birley it states "Cricket reporters are on their trial. Their offence is that they have introduced a classification of counties into major and minor, or first-class and second-class." So there is a mention of "major cricket" on that page, but I would agree that the intention of the reference was to source the meeting, rather than the term. Harrias ^talk 08:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically he refers to major counties - as a purely descriptive term - he doesn't use the term "major cricket" at any point in the book (probably because he wrote the book long before the term was invented by Wikipedia editors). "Minor Counties" and "First-Class Counties" exist outside of this website, "Major Counties" never did, and "Second Class Counties" is not really used either. Its not particularly logical, but it is what it is. Py0alb (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second-class counties used to be an exceptionally common term. The term "major cricket" was not "invented by Wikipedia editors", it has been used elsewhere, prior to its usage here, but the point is that that usage is not common and well-defined. Which is why a redirect is a more appropriate close that a straight deletion. Harrias ^talk 09:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wisden used "Second-Class Counties" as its heading for reports of Minor Counties seasons through to about the Second World War. I don't have the 1894 or 1895 Wisdens to see how they reported the MCC meeting that decided the definitions, but I think there's a report in the 1899 edition, which I do have, but not currently with me, and I'll look at the weekend to see what it says. In the light of what Harrias and I have written about this Birley reference, and in the expectation that there is a consensus emerging that "major cricket" was, for whatever reason, a term that never "took off", I'd like to see the implications of bad faith and falsehoods made by others in this discussion against the main author of this article at least moderated, and at best withdrawn. We're all here to try to improve WP: this article may in terms of its title be a bit misguided, but it is not malicious. Johnlp (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed unnecessary personal attacks

The more I read this stuff, the more disturbing it becomes. The clause in the article which has been drawn from page 145 of Sir Derek Birley's book states: "and classified as official first-class teams from 1895 following a meeting in May 1894 by Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) and the County Championship clubs". Prior to the "and" is another clause ending in a semi-colon which has been itself been referenced to a different source. Anyone who understands English can see that the Birley reference is the citation for the closing clause ONLY. Nowhere in that clause does the word "major" appear and nowhere is it even implied because the clause is about the MCC meeting in 1894 at which "first-class cricket" was officially defined for the first time. The statements above by Hallward's Ghost and, yet again, Py0alb are not only lies, they are also blatant attempts to discredit a good editor. Hallward's Ghost is right about one thing. Sanctions do need to be taken: against him and his new friend. I see that Harrias is an admin so perhaps he would like to issue the appropriate official warnings to this pair? Thank you. GnGn (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh stop. What am I to be sanctioned for, buying the actual book being put forth as a citation for the notability of this article on a fake term? I did indexed searches of that book, and it does not contain even one reference to the term "major cricket", on page 145 or anywhere else. I made no attempt to "discredit" anyone. I was a bit skeptical regarding all the offline sources, so I spent $14 of my own money to check one out. If it had contained that phrase, I'd have posted that information here as well. So back away from ledge, GnGn. You're not going to get me banned for doing actual legwork to check out offline sourcing at an AFD. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 16:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You "are to be sanctioned" for making a baseless accusation of bad faith against another editor, one with over ten years' experience too. You have lied to the participants in this discussion with the deliberate intention of misleading them in the matter of that reference. The least you can do is apologise and formally withdraw the accusation, if you have any decency. GnGn (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, you need to stop. I did not, at any point, "lie." I pointed out that (unlike you, apparently) I had bothered to buy and read one of the offline sources purporting to support the notability of this neologism. It does not, in fact, provide ANY support for the notability of this neologism. Had it been otherwise, I'd have reported that here as well. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 16:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know I haven't got Birley's book? As a matter of fact and so I can verify that the article author is being completely honest in regard to that reference while you are deliberately trying to discredit him by means of a baseless accusation of bad faith. That is bad faith on your part. Your attitude disgusts me. Withdraw the accusation and apologise. GnGn (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, what "disgusts" you makes no difference to me. I did some due diligence on this AFD, and have now been accused (multiple times) of being a liar, assuming bad faith, etc. And you think I'm the one who owes some sort of apology. Umm... no. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 16:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Since we are now being told ex post facto that the Birley reference was never intended to support the notability of this neologism, can someone please make a list of the offline sources that ARE, supposedly, supporting the notability of this neologism? By doing so, perhaps we can avoid having another editor spend their own money (and time) digging through offline sourcing in a reference that was supposedly never intended to support the notability of the article. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 16:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Try reading the article and note the clauses and sentences to which each citation refers. GnGn (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to answer the question, please don't bother to post a snarky reply. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 16:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnorman Gnome: Your conduct here has crossed the line into a personal attack on Hallward's Ghost and Py0alb. While the latter has certainly produced some malformed arguments, there is no evidence that either are specifically trying to discredit anyone. Hallward's Ghost may have analysed the source incorrectly, but nothing more than that. If you continue this tirade, it will be yourself that ends up being sanctioned I am afraid. Harrias ^talk 16:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will give you a courteous reply when you have earned one by withdrawing the false accusation of dishonesty and bad faith that you made against BlackJack and have aplogise dto him. GnGn (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias:=GnGn is continuing this tirade, I guess. Hallward's Ghost ^(Kevin) ^{(My talkpage)} 16:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, I suggest you read again what this person wrote about your colleague in the cricket project. See this diff taken from the above discussion. Unless I am very much mistaken, he accuses your colleague as follows: "falsely claimed in the current reference section, or anywhere else. In my view, this is a major issue, that needs dealt with firmly. Whoever placed that reference, lied about it's confirming that certain cricket teams had been referred to as "major cricket teams." As someone who depends greatly in my real world existence on the honesty of researchers and colleagues, my view is that such dissembling should be sanctionable claimed". He accuses BlackJack of false claims, lies and dissembling. And you as an admin can just sit there in your ivory tower and decide that there is no evidence of him trying to discredit BlackJack. If you are typical of admins on this site, no wonder its reputation is so bad in many quarters. Absolutely disgusting. GnGn (talk) 16:51, 28 January 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. Clearly no consensus for deletion, and editors are encouraged to further consider merging through normal processes and discussion. postdlf (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of exophonic writers[edit]

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

IMO a pretty much arbitrary criterion for a list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - I created the list because there is significant debate on the topic, both academically and in general media (I am aiming to pull in the various links in due course, when time permits), but the terminology is mixed and each article tends to list only a few of the examples, so there is a need for a more comprehensive list - where better than here? Ozaru (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: The title of this list strikes me as unlikely to be the first one that people think of (though I can't think of a definitely better one in that respect), but the criterion is far enough from arbitrary that it is the subject of significant awards (for instance, the Adelbert von Chamisso Prize and, for quite a few of the authors listed (for instance, Joseph Conrad, Vladimir Nabokov), the influence of their first language on their later writing in another language is frequently considered in scholarly works on their writing. Having said that, some narrowing of the criteria for the list might, after further discussion, be useful, so that it is more explicitly about writers in areas (for instance, fiction or poetry) likely to be discussed at least as much for their style as for their content - it would not help this list to have it swamped (as it could be) by, say, writers on legal or scientific topics in periods when writing on them was expected to be in languages that were not the first languages of many of the authors (for instance, Latin in the European Middle Ages or rather later, or English today). PWilkinson (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- re: " the subject of significant awards" - awards for what? For exophony? Chamisso prize is for non-Germans written in German. There may be other similar, specific prizes. Language-specific lists would make sense. The generic list will be huge. For example, all recipients listed in Adelbert von Chamisso Prize will go here. But I would rather see List of writers in German as second language - A maintainable, sepecific list, with understandable title. I agree that the concept of "exophony" is overlooked. How about creating Category:Exophony? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Exophony. There's no real need for two articles when the main one is so short. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Exophony" is a neologism, and I am not sure wikipedia has to promote neologisms.Staszek Lem (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there's no need for two articles at present, and the suggested merge is one idea - although I recall other pages where editors have suggested it's a bad idea to have a list inside an article, and they're better split off. Maybe they could be merged for now, then later (if & when the article has grown into something more substantial), one could consider splitting the list off again? BTW I did also create a Category but have yet to find time to apply it to the various writers in the List, so the List itself is so far the only entry (I didn't add the Article page).

Re the title, one reason I created the article was because I was searching for the definitive word to describe this, and encountered instead numerous rather woffly descriptions ('writers who write principally in a language which is not their mother tongue' etc.) - exophonic does appear to be quite a recent coinage, but that's probably because the topic itself is only recently coming to the forefront, so the new term is needed - and there's no single better candidate. Ozaru (talk) 13:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but merging to exophony may be desirable for now. Suggest focusing on expanding that article and improving sourcing. Exophony appears to be a legitimate area of study, so a list of exophonic writers is appropriate if the inclusion criteria are sufficiently tight. Pburka (talk) 02:51, 25 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polygenelubricants[edit]

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

Java programming trivia; perhaps worth a brief mention at Java hashCode(). Proposed deletion contested by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mike Rosoft it is trivia non notable for separate article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and not meeting the WP:GNG. References available are not well known or reliable blogs and not general interest publications. Also almost certainly a permanent stub based on the limited information about the topic. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:58, 26 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casio BE-300[edit]

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

No references or indication of notability. A very large portion of the article consists of fansite-like material and instructions. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 17:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Widely released consumer electronics almost always meet notability guidelines. It does need some pretty massive clean up though.--Yasth (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 21:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the lots of passing mentions I find. Products distinctly and widely released are notable per the long term consensus.—UY Scuti ^Talk 16:53, 29 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assbleep[edit]

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

Unsourced and promotional article. It does not meet our notability recommendations for video-games or our general notability guidelines. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced ... advertising ... not notable Neiltonks (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly no signs of beter yet. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 27 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PARIDHI[edit]

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

Non-notable event or festival. Mostly trivial mentions via blogspots, directories, listings, announcements or Facebook. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 15:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Wisdom89 ^♦talk 15:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable event covered by The Telegraph in news daily— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.81.233 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 January 2016‎

Do you have a link or other details about this citation? ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note to closer: The unsigned comment is from an IP with little other contributions Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm just not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any independent coverage. Unable to deorphan. ~Kvng (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources suggesting that this may meet WP:GNG. A narrow search for "Telegraph" and PARIDHI didn't find anything either.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:14, 27 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jenny C. Yip[edit]

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

WP:N superβεεcat 08:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability within her field and sources seem self-serving - the subject's own website, CV, Facebook, self-published book etc. And she seems to have been born in Hong Kong which is in the UK!?? Emeraude (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into finding other sources. She is noted in her field, which is CBT therapy. I don't work for her and was not solicited to write the article. Yes, Hong Kong was part of the the U.K. in 1976, that's why she was a British citizen rather than a Chinese citizen. Hong Kong transferred back to China in 1997. Mila Kunis was born in the U.S.S.R., which no longer exists. It's been about a decade since I last created a page here so bear with me.DiLo70 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hong Kong was never "part of the UK" (=United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); it was a British colony. Emeraude (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or send back to draft I only find her cited for comment in RS. She has appeared in a lot of articles, but only briefly so far. Her only scholarly paper that I found is in this journal.^[1] She may be WP:TOOSOON. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ O'Neill, Joseph; Gorbis, Eda; Feusner, Jamie D.; Yip, Jenny C.; Chang, Susanna; Maidment, Karron M.; Levitt, Jennifer G.; Salamon, Noriko; Ringman, John M. "Effects of intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy on cingulate neurochemistry in obsessive–compulsive disorder". Journal of Psychiatric Research. 47 (4): 494–504. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.11.010. PMC 3672238. PMID 23290560.

Delete: as promo. Appears to be more of a curriculum vitae or resume rather than an article in an encylopaedia. Quis separabit? 18:20, 23 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Love and Winter[edit]

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

Short lived tag team. The team doesn't pass WP:GNG. All of the relevant information is already (or can easily be added) to the two individuals' pages. Nikki♥311 07:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 07:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 08:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/small>

Delete - They did little of note as a team, not enough to warrant a totally seperate article, at most a section in their individual articles. MPJ-US 20:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do seem to remember this storyline going on forever but as a team they aren't particularly notable and certainly don't stand the test of time.LM2000 (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.--Donniediamond (talk) 13:38, 25 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarita and Taylor Wilde[edit]

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

Short lived tag team. The team doesn't pass WP:GNG. All of the relevant information is already (or can easily be added) to the two individuals' pages. Nikki♥311 07:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 07:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 09:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They did little of note as a team, not enough to warrant a totally seperate article, at most a section in their individual articles. MPJ-US 20:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 00:11, 24 January 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 List of cemeteries in Poland. Those requesting the article be retained have failed to present enough reliable sources, covering the subject significantly, for notability to be established per WP:GNG and WP:BASIC (multiple sources, not just one, are required). Therefore, the article's subject is unable to be found notable enough for a stand-alone article at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Military cementery number 398 – Bieńczyce[edit]

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

Contested prod. Proposed for deletion because "No evidence of any notability for this small, relatively short-lived and long-removed cemetery." Prod removed because "actually, the significance of this entry is that it begins the [Category:World War I cemeteries|Poland] → meanwhile, in Polish wiki there are hundreds of WWI cemeteries listed", which makes me seriously worried. Being one of hundreds is not an indication of notability, quite the contrary actually. That these articles exist on Polish Wikipedia is no indication of notability either, every language version has their own rules and what may be accepted there is not necessarily fit for enwiki. What is needed is actual evidence of WP:N-meeting coverage, not short mentions but serious, indepth sources about this specific cemetery. Fram (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I see this to be a canary in a coal mine. I was not aware until today that we have Lists of cemeteries in Wikipedia which include virtually every easily recognizable country except for Poland. I don't know why? Perhaps because this is a new thing within Wikipedia:WikiProject Death or something, but I need to know whether Cemetery is or is not notable by design around here. Is there a place to confirm that? Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 01:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of cemeteries list all notable cemeteries per country, not all cemeteries per country, as many cemeteries are not notable (but every country has a few or a lot of notable ones). No idea why we didn't have such a list for Poland, but to go from no list to separate articles on all cemeteries is quite a huge leap. Fram (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Major war cemeteries around the world attract considerable coverage, but its unlikely that this single grave ever did. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- An article on a single-grave cemetery does not seem worth having. However, it would be better to merge it than to plain delete. I am not sure where it should be merged to. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cemeteries in Poland. It doesn't exist, but that's easy (WP:SOFIXIT), which I'll do in a second. We could use Wikiepdia:Notability (cemeteries), and Wikipedia:Notability (buildings) as well Wikiepdia:Notability (monuments) are failed/red links. Which takes us back to GNG (or Wikipedia:Notability_(geographic_features)#Buildings_and_objects) and I don't see how this one passes - unless we consider it a monument or zabytek of sorts; which I think are notable by the virtue of classification (and per "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable." from the policy cited above). Not that I can find any mentions of this being a monument. Pl wiki does seem to consider all such small cemeteries notable, see pl:Szablon:Zachodniogalicyjskie cmentarze wojenne z I wojny światowej, through I will see about it, as I've started an AfD there as well for this article. If there is preference for merger, I'd stress that any merger should make room for the entire content of the article WP:NOTPAPER). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:28, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting place of local history, there are reliable sources and in some way it is unique cementary as there is only one grave. As I see discusion (AfD) on Polish Wikipedia, they will probably keep this article (but in Polish Wikipedia an administrators sometimes ignore discusion and delate/keep articles despite other arguments). List of Cementaries would be too big. Kmicic (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are reliable sources.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: reliable sources? [23] looks like a wiki, and furthermore gives me no results when searching for "398" or "Bieńczyce" or "Bienczyce" on it. The second source, [24] has no indication of why it would be notable (no idea who created it and what their credentials are), and in any case has one sentence about the cemetery: "It was a single tomb of an Austrian soldier, located at ul. Makuszyńskiego and closed in the fifties during the widening of the street." (Google translate). The third and final source is a map[25], not information about the cemetery. The "references", more of a further reading, contain again one of the three sites above, and then one book by an amateur-historian[26]. So in total, we have at most one reliable(?) source of unknown detail about this cemetery, not multiple reliable sources as needed by WP:NOTABILITY and as claimed in the keeps above. Fram (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a reliable source, see book Galicyjskie cmentarze wojenne by Roman Frodyma. Kmicic (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's hardly a reply to my comment, I discussed the book, you haven't addressed any point of my comment though. Fram (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to relevant list. This is a very small article, there seems to be just a para or so to say. So why not say it in the list?

A counter-argument might be on the basis of "Unusually small cemeteries, still recognised as such". Yet if they built a road through it, no-one was caring that much about it. Viam Ferream (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Viam Ferream, it was not "a road" being built. It was a main thoroughfare through the neighbourhood. The singular grave would have to be moved elsewhere in any other place on earth. I presume, the grave was moved to an existing cemetery in Krakow. However, it would be nice to know, which one. Poeticbent talk 15:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is notable. I certainly think that it's interesting. I said merge, but I'd be happy with keep and I'd be against delete.

My only concern is which form is easier to read for our readers? I see a very small article like this handled better within a list, not outside that list. Viam Ferream (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would something with one source of dubious reliability (and unknown length about this cemetery) be notable according to WP:NOTABILITY? Fram (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sources are sufficient to remove any doubt as to its existence, and I would see the goal for showing notability on a cemetery being one of confirmation (do we have the name / dates / location right?), not of arguing the case for military cemeteries in general. There are official lists of such things: if it makes it onto the list, it is a cemetery. This is different to rappers and one's favourtie comic book, where "notability" is far more subjective and so needs a consensus of individual sources to show it. Viam Ferream (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't agree that "being a confirmed cemetery" is enough to be considered notable, but you probably already guessed as much ;-) Merging seems acceptable in this case (the list didn't even exist at the time of the deletion nomination), keeping as a stand-alone article is to me, based on the available source(s), incorrect, but I don't think we will convince each other about this! Fram (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with no prejudice to a later merge. Sourcing reliably comes from w:pl:Roman Frodyma, where this author is a recognized expert in the topic of Polish war cemeteries. Hopefully, the editor who created this article will be encouraged to contribute more such articles. Unscintillating (talk) 06:07, 30 January 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 Ubisoft. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hybride Technologies[edit]

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

Comment: I'm fence sitting on how this should go. Should this article be left alone, nuked or redirected to Ubisoft? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 06:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising article.—azuki (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ubisoft. I am not seeing enough coverage for a standalone article so it probably shouldn't stay as it is. However, Ubisoft already mentions Hybride Technologies under their current studios section and redirects are cheap. --Majora (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as mentioned, perhaps not entirely delete material but can be moved there for now, if there's ever a better available article separately. SwisterTwister talk 23:43, 25 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsa Buffaloes[edit]

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

Does not receive significant news coverage. There is only one article that actually goes in-depth is on the web from "GTR Newspapers" [27] Only other mentions are facebook, twitter, etc. JTtheOG (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - there's no team yet and no evidence that there ever will be, plus I have WP:PROMO concerns. Dkendr (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient coverage in reliable sources, some concerns about this being promotional, and insufficient status to be inherently notable. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:00, 22 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter W. G. Jennings[edit]

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

Mostly unreferenced WP:Vanispamcruftisement for author who doesn't yet meet WP:AUTHOR, producer who doesn't yet meet WP:CREATIVE, presenter of a monthly community cable show who doesn't yet meet WP:ENTERTAINER, and businessman who doesn't yet meet WP:BIO. No significant coverage for him online from WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources, just a few mentions in local press of the shark book published two months ago, but mostly focused on the attack victim, rather than on his role as co-author. Article was apparently written by a relative of the TV presenter whose show he produces. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bazj (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as mentioned, no signs of even minimally better here. If so, delete for now at best. SwisterTwister talk 23:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of this gets over Wikipedia's inclusion standards for that class of human activity, and the referencing is virtually all primary sources that can never support notability by themselves — so even if the claims did meet any inclusion criteria, the article still wouldn't be keepable if referenced this way. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 26 January 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 clear consensus exists herein for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nemetics[edit]

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

Article was created by members or associates of the Institution for Nemetics. Despite several requests and elapsed time no third party sources have been provided. The article is mostly original research and is promotional. Editors have been asked if there are any COI issues and in the main have not responded. I've searched Google Scholar and asked colleagues at the University and no sources of any value have come to light --Snowded ^TALK 05:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question of COI was answered directly by me, and also by NewsNeus, who created the article. If there is anything "promotional" in it, I am hard pressed to understand what it might be - I don't see how anyone, including the International Nemetics Institute members ho made minor edits, stands to be "promoted" or gain anything from this article. There is no money involved, no one is paid either to write or edit the article. The one area where you may have grounds for deletion would be notability. That said, there are many pages on Wikipedia that have a notability tag and continue to exist for quite some time. I'd be interested to know what criteria are used to create that situation. Culturecom (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Either I'm incredibly stupid, or this is basically a hoax. The whole thing reads like something written by Alan Sokal. Just take the phrase that was just added to the article: "When analising conversations on different digital media (Twitter, Facebook, etc), nemetics focus on different levels of conceptualization: The individual thinking sequence (NEME)) can develop in repetitive and recursive processes, evolving into collective communication exchange, through a particular flow of events or behaviours." As far as I can see, this actually does not mean anything. If there's something here, the whole article would need to be re-written in order to become understandable. Hence delete either per WP:HOAX or per WP:TNT, whichever is more applicable. --Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I read the article, I thought "this is written in psychobabble". But Randykitty has hit the nail on the head: it's not psychobabble, it's a parody of psychobabble. It is not a sincere attempt to convey understanding of a real subject to interested readers. Maproom (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the initial version needed improving, but it was better than this final collective version. At this point, there are too many changes to revert. But to understand the content, please check the section "Memes as discrete units". Both Nemes and Memes work in the same way and belong to the same research field.NewsNeus (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the term does exist, and is used in some books, see Google book search. However, these all seem to be passing mentions, no evidence of significant coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it exists and I'm certain it will keep going for a while... but I do agree that notability is a point. However, is there an objective mesurable criteria to validate significant coverage? If we consider the number of countries where there are trainers or researchers using this term, it is possible to mention people in US, India, Spain, France, Canada, and Namibia, without doing a deeper search (and not all of them are experts in fractal analysis of transmedia discourse).NewsNeus (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have a Masters degree in Mathematics, and have never heard of the term. Also, just because the term exists, that doesn't necessarily make it notable- Wikipedia is not a not a dictionary. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is incomprehensible. I haven't checked the references in detail, but, if there is a valid concept with scholarly notability, it isn't described here. My own guess is thatWP:TNT is more likely than WP:HOAX. It is incomprehensible. Just because it is in English doesn't mean that an English-reader can understand it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I blush in shame, but I hear. I'll try to do it better next time!. NewsNeus (talk) 00:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is incomprehensible pseudointellectual hogwash about an utterly non-notable topic. People who spout this stuff should spend a month or two reading Ernest Hemingway, who knew how to write a concise sentence that actually makes sense. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even the article creator admits "I do agree that notability is a point". Lots of verbiage but no substance, certainly not in reliable, independent sources - a case of The Emperors New Clothes. - Arjayay (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Using the NEME model: Notice that the subject has no independent reliable sources. Engage with fractal psychobabble. Mull that the article is at best utter nonsense and at worst a blatant hoax. Exchange, !voting delete. —teb728 t c 12:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Care is taken not to define the discipline or its boundaries very rigidly". Well, actually considerable care seems to have been taken not to define it at all; reading the article is like drinking a mug of fog. The advice of Cullen328 is excellent, though my own recommendation would have been Raymond Carver. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:39, 26 January 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 12:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bennie Briggman[edit]

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

Keeps on having a blp prod removed by a IP (not a normal prod so it was allowed to back up), anyway not sure how accurate this is-it seems the page it links to says he is a producer of it but the IP just added it, also I did get some google hits but not sure how accurate either. Wgolf (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough -Andrew (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Currently quite questionable, deletion applicable with nothing else to suggest otherwise better. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 25 January 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). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan[edit]

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

I can't find any independent reliable sources about this scholar. Excluding youtube, I don't see that The Muslim 500 is a reliable source (or says much) and the other is his personal website. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (leaning towards Keep) -- The Muslim500 is described well at The 500 Most Influential Muslims -- its release has been covered in sources such as the Washington Post, The Independent, Reuters, Times of India; I think that it leans towards notability for the subject, but I'll need to look more on what was said about him to be sure. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a chance to look through the Muslim 500 list and in areas where WP is well represented (sports, finance, science), the figures included all are clearly above GNG; "Preachers and Spiritual Guides" is less well represented here, but I have no reason to believe that the notability requirements there for the list would be lower. Muhammad Awan has appeared multiple years. Thus Keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Since he is the Sheikh (leader) of a major Islamic Sufi mystical Order, perhaps his notability should be treated in the same way as other religious figures? See WP:RELPEOPLE. Esowteric+Talk 15:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:. I am not sure if "Ameer" is part of his name or if it is just a title. Before I cleaned up the article, there was an unsourced movement parameter in the infobox: Tanzeem Alikhwan. There does seem to be somebody named Muhammad Akram Awan who is head of this movement from Chakwal, according to this newspaper article and a couple of GBooks hits for "Muhammad Akram Awan" (skip the ones beginning with "Malik Muhammad..."). "Ameer" was born in the Chakwal region, so I wonder if he and the Tanzeem guy are the same, because I cannot find anything about this in the sources of the wiki-article. - HyperGaruda (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that Ameer is a transliteration of the honorific title, Emir. Though not a reliable source, his Facebook info page is entitled "Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan" and in the description he is referred to as "Shaikh Muhammad Akram Awan". One post refers to him as "Hazrat Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan" (Hazrat or Hadhrat being another, more elevated honorific meaning [His] "Presence"). Again, although a primary source, the Naqshbandi Owaisiah site refers to him as "Shaikh Muhammad Akram Awan" and (in the chain of transmission) as "Hadhrat Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan". Esowteric+Talk 11:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim500 list calls him Sheikh Muhammad, so my guess is that the sources for Tanzeem Alikhwan would be referring to him; so I would consider that part of the evidence for his notability. Perhaps see also his FB public page: [28] which has about 10,000 likes. There he is called "Hazrat Ameer Muhammad Akram Awan" -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 22 January 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. To delete, but consensus that something should be done editorially, i.e., redirect or disambiguate. May need more discussion. Sandstein 11:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Budapest[edit]

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

Budapest did not exist in 1241 (or at any time during the Second Mongol invasion of Hungary). There is evidence that the Mongols burned Pest, but no evidence in the cited sources that this event has ever been referred to as the "Sack of Pest" and certainly not as the "Sack of Budapest". Given the lack of material in this article, I would just change it to a redirect, but given that "Sack of Budapest" is a misleading redirect, I think outright deletion is the best course of action. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete There's no article here. Curro2 (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle_of_Mohi#Devastation_of_Hungary. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find for that redirect target. But again, I disagree with making this a redirect, because the title "Sack of Budapest" is misleading, seeing that there was no Budapest at the time. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiDan61: Actually, you're right. "Sack of Budapest" seems to refer to two distinct events, one in 1526 and another in 1956. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the 1526 event can't truly be called the "Sack of Budapest" since Budapest did not exist as a unified city until 1873. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably make a disambiguation to every time the place now called Budapest was sacked. Multiple sources do refer to the 1526 event that way. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would work. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Sack of Pest (1241) then redirect per Sammy1939. Budapest did not exist until a bridge was built to unite the cities of Buda and Pest. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to disambiguation per Sammy. ansh 666 01:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and convert to dab page as per discussion between Sammy and WikiDan61. Title should remain Budapest (not everyone who uses Wikipedia is as conversant in history as folks like Peterkingiron), but when the dab is made, a redirect with the name he suggests should be created, pointing to the dab page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as whether or not the current article, this still seems notable and acceptable and hopefully better improvable. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While it is agreed that they do not meet the requirements of WP:FOOTY, the arguments for meeting WP:GNG are more well-developed and documented than those arguing against meeting the notability criteria. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Harrison (footballer, born 1996)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has yet to play in a WP:FPL so fails WP:NFOOTY. Seasider91 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've filled the refs, but obviously non-notable. I would have considered speedy if I'd got here first Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication of any collage award to satisfy NCOLLATH. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy either NHSPHSATH or widerGNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has received a good amount of non trivial news coverage in both England and the USA since being picked 1st in the MLS super draft Arials101 (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable coverage has now been received including two major UK newspapers. Red Jay (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NOTABLE, might be WP:TOOSOON, but it's a waste of time to just delete for this article to pop up again. FMUSAPyramid (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with massive international media coverage - which isn't surprising as he was the number one draft pick in the 2016 MLS SuperDraft. Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title of The Telegraph says it best: "Jack Harrison 'no longer a secret' in England after MLS No 1 draft pick and move to New York City FC" The first sentence in the article goes on to say: "Jack Harrison may be little known in England but that is all about to change." Tradedia^talk 01:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Fails WP:NFOOTBALL but passes WP:GNG The Telegraph Guardian.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage, enough for the purposes of satisfying GNG Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 10:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy decision here. Failing NFOOTY does not mean he cannot meet GNG, which he clearly does, as a quick web search demonstrates. For example, major news sites that have published articles about him include: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upon a review of sources available, the subject meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 29 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misuzulu Zulu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of independent notability. Nothing seem to be notable about him outside the fact that he's an expected successor to the current king Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu. We will probably consider an article when he finally succeeded Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 15:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from me to wonder about notability rules, but if the 3rd in line to the British throne is automatically notable, perhaps the 1st in line to another throne should be also. Otherwise I'm with Laurence Sterne on infants who "create works". Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Full disclosure I created the article. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge 8 months old, the fourth in line to the English throne has an article and she is notable only for that. The person is notable for being a crown prince. Being a crowned prince or princess makes one notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a policy-based argument? Can you point out where the policy says that " Being a crowned prince or princess makes one notable"? Prince and Princess don't get freebie article here on Wikipedia unless they meet our notability criteria. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 04:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that WP:GNG or WP:BIO have or can be met. I can't find any news coverage, mention in books, or even WP:RS-acceptable websites that cover this person. He's mentioned in passing in a few places, but that doesn't grant notability. Neither does being a royal, regardless of country or distance from the throne. It is possible that he may be covered in other languages, but I don't know those languages and therefore can't try to find them. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess we have to Delete then. Let's hope a few Nth-in-line babies get PRODded too, eh? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing to indicate any independent notability and any sourced material relevant to his thin dynastic notability is already on his father's page. GraniteSand (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:12, 25 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Cavern[edit]

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

Unsourced since its creation way back in 2003, and fails WP:GNG Adam9007 (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a town of Clay, Alabama government webpage source to the article. It is a former tourist attraction and is a significant geological feature, so it is fundamentally notable. It is verified to exist. The fact that article has been in place since 2003 speaks to the basic accuracy....there are a number of past visitor mentions at the Talk page...nothing is disputed as far as I can tell. It is not promotional. The first Google hits are mirror sites of this Wikipedia article, so are not independent sources. Since it has been closed since the 1960s we would not expect there to be wide coverage in online sources. Since it was discovered pre-1920s and is/was a worthy natural feature, we can be reasonably sure that deadtree coverage about it exists, it is just not easily found. Notability is not temporary. Keep. --do ncr am 02:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is currently significantly WP:OR but it meets WP:GEOLAND, for instance:

Mentioned in Encylopedia of Alabama
Apparently surveyed in 1924/1925
Described " on p59 as "the poorest commercialized cave I have ever seen"
In the Alabama Review
In W.D. Johnson's (Ground Water in the Paleozoic Rocks of northern Alabama)
Is/was home of the McCluney Cave Cricket (Euhadenoecus insolitus) [35]
Terry Ragon's map of the cavern was awarded best Short Caves and Best of Show in 2001

^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 13:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Don't think there is nay point keeping this open. Let's just call this nomination an error and chalk it up to experience. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Al Somah[edit]

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

The article's subject fails WP:NSPORTS. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Al Somah has played for the Syrian national team, and in the fully pro Saudi Premier League, meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has played multiple times for the Syria national football team as well as in a fully professional league and so ful fills both elements of the football related part of NSPORTS. Fenix down (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly passes WP:NSPORTS as he's got several international caps. Number 5 7 16:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:NFOOTBALL has played for the Syrian national team and in the Saudi Premier League a fully professional league .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:GNG per above. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL having played internationally for Syria and in the Saudi Premier League. — Michael (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International player, so quite clear-cut. I think this is ready for a close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:14, 24 January 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Tormé[edit]

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

OK, I'll be the one to say it. A blind man could look at current article and want to BLOW IT UP. It is a DISASTER. Quis separabit? 01:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to father (Mel Torme)'s page in the alternative. Quis separabit? 20:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the article itself is indeed in bad shape, this has nothing to do with whether the article subject is notable. A quick look indicates that it probably is, though I could be persuaded otherwise. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed the subject is non-notable (check this out), just that the article is irreparably compromised, IMHO. Quis separabit? 22:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having the article deleted, I think what you want to do is be bold and simply removed all the unsourced opinion from the article - if that leaves a stub, so be it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll try to remember to take a look at this. But the subject is almost certainly notable (come on – the guy who created Sliders isn't "notable"?!...). I suspect this just needs some better sourcing, and some article "clean up". I'm really not sure this is a "WP:STARTOVER" case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again -- I never said the subject is not notable but that the article is compromised to such an extent that it should be redone and reviewed. Quis separabit? 01:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There is nothing in WP:DEL-REASON to explain why an article should be deleted in order provide a clean slate to start over. Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is an essay, but if we're going to go that way then read Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy (although I appreciate the irony of quoting that particular one). Miyagawa (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essays and proposals should only be cited as opinion or advice, not admonishment. They should not be used as an end-run around the Wikipedia process of establishing consensus.

@Miyagawa, I stand by my nomination. I think the article should be blown up because it is devoid of integrity. I could have shaved into a stub myself had I elected to do so. As far as the above quote goes, AFD is by definition about seeking consensus. I don't think I've been more of an admonisher on this thread any more than I am anywhere else or than anyone else is. In any event, if I was guilty of such, then I have clearly been supplanted in that role. Quis separabit? 14:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just select the deletion criteria that applies to this request and then we can have the discussion about the article. In my reading of that article, it doesn't require actually deleting the article in order to start over with it. I have created several articles in userspace which I've then used to entirely replace existing articles because there was nothing worth saving on them. But by doing it that way, it retains the edit history. Someone had to post what I wrote above, because this is a listing in articles for deletion where the criteria under the deletion was not mentioned by the person who opened the discussion. The admonishment part of the essay I mentioned had nothing to do with what you posted, it was the crux of the title that I listed it for. Except of course that was using an essay to say not to use essays, which in itself isn't a policy and actually says in the text of it not to use it as an essay. But you get my point. Miyagawa (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mel Tormé perhaps if questionably solidly notable. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before coming over here, I did a massive clean-up of the article. It is now a stub. Details on the clean-up are at the article's Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you stubbed it but looks even less notable now. Should be redirected to father's page. Wonder if we'll wind up having an AFD (2nd nomination). Quis separabit? 20:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original article didn't just suffer from poor writing; it also suffered from poor research. The subject was nominated for the 1993 Saturn Award for Best Writing for the film Fire in the Sky, and I've updated the article to reflect this. The overwhelming majority of the screenwriters who have been nominated for this long-running award have their own articles. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that it has been stubbed it can be properly expanded with RS (hopefully by a sci-fi expert) as I think that creating Sliders and his work on Star Trek Next Generation makes this writer notable.Atlantic306 (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above - now that the questionable material has been removed, a real article can be written. Does appear to have sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ciarán Kilduff[edit]

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

Was deleted before at AfD, not sure why it was restored. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Was deleted before at AfD, not sure why it was restored"
because someone has a personal interest in recreating the article. If vote is to delete again, must be SALTED. I withhold judgment at this point as I often stumble in trying to gauge the notability of sports figures, and don't nominate unless I am pretty sure. Quis separabit? 01:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 01:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was restored at the request of User:DavidDublin who claimed that Kilduff had played in the UEFA Europa League citing http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2012/matches/round=2000272/match=2007277/postmatch/lineups/index.html. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Restoration rationale is flawed, consensus is that european appearances only count towards NFOOTY if a) they are in the competition propoer, not qualifying rounds, and b) they are in matches between teams both of who play in FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see absolutely no reason to Salt. It was restored by User:BDD, who was the same user who closed the original AFD as delete. Due process was followed. Why are so many editors so quick to violate WP:AGF ignoring perhaps the most important principal of the five WP:Pillars. Nfitz (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet the relevant guidelines. GiantSnowman explains them succintly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McNally (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Liam Patton

Articles for deletion/Paul McNally (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete LOI does not appear to be fully professional Seasider91 (talk) 08:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. League of Ireland covers the top two levels of football in the ccountry so fully-professional or not is hardly an issue. Has also represented All-Ireland (i.e, the Republic and NI combined) internationally. Emeraude (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or for his county's national team (all Ireland matches are not sanctioned at tier 1), meaning the artilce fails WP:NSPORT. He has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Keep argument above fundamentally flawed, the FPL necessity is there mainly to prevent the creation of thousands of articles on amateur footballers across the globe simply because they have played in their countries top division. Secondly, the "All-Ireland team" is not a formal football team so does not count as a full international appearance. Fenix down (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article indicates LOI not fully professional so he fails NFOOTY. GnGn (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Irish league is not fully-professional, contrary to the above keep vote. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question:So, to clarify, the fact that there is no fully professional league in Ireland means that there should be no articles at all on footballers in Ireland? Emeraude (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emeraude: - those players that have played for their national team or another team in a fully-pro league or have had significant coverage would be notable. But a standard LoI player - no, not notable. Giant Snowman 12:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman:So no footballers in Ireland other than those in the national team? Not even those who are professional? Emeraude (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emeraude: - it doesn't matter if the player is professional, or their club - it is the league itself which must be fully-professional. Giant Snowman 12:30, 24 January 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) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aliquando Press[edit]

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

WP:NORG failure. The 6 six citations are actually from 3 sources, which are primarily about its founder. Possible WP:COATRACK to promote the founder. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as a combo article about the press and its founder. The founder is a book design artist, in effect, and the press is the result of his work. The first reference is a writeup (by a librarian perhaps?) at Massey College in Canada, and appears to be independent and factual. I see no reason to question this. The article should be revised to characterize this more clearly as an ongoing art project and its main artist. --do ncr am 02:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, rather then WP:NORG applying, this looks more like WP:CREATIVE, which it would pass, with Rueter receiving the Robert R. Reid Award, so suggest Move to article called William Rueter. ps. he is also mentioned in a number of wikiarticles for stamp design - Emily Carr#Recognition, J. E. H. MacDonald#Legacy, Paul Kane#Legacy and influence, and an article reference so there appears to be lots of info out there. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just did a ProQuest "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" search — and between hits on "Aliquando Press", hits on "William Rueter" and hits on "Will Rueter", there is enough reliable source coverage available to get this out of the weeds. And that's just in a database that only goes back to 1979 — the company was in operation for another 15+ years before that, for which I'm still going to have to hit a different database. The volume does fall short of what it would take to justify splitting them out into two separate topics, but there's absolutely enough to support this article (although I'm neutral about whether it should stay at this title or be moved to his name.) And seriously, an archival fonds at Massey College? A six-week exhibit devoted specifically to his work with this company at Queen's University? Keep, I'll take a stab at adding some more references. Bearcat (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Bearcat, an editor with tough standards who does reliable searches for sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 29 January 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Cribb[edit]

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

tried to tidy up, find sources, make encyclopaedic, but struggling. very poor article. struggling to find notability. only thing is a play that got turned into a very small-scale film. cannot see what anything in career/achievements that confers notability Rayman60 (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Writer of multiple notable works. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Won an AACTA Award. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known in Australia as a playwright. His recent film Last Cab to Darwin was very popular in Australia and did well at the box office; they performed it as a play at the Sydney Opera House about a decade earlier. Country Song (as a play/musical) toured Australia last year. I believe he has another film in preparation for release in 2016. There is a suggestion that the article is an autobiography but I can't see the basis for that claim; the original contributor does not appear to be an SPA. Cribb is well-covered in AusStage (the Australiian university project to document Australian theatre etc). There are loads of citations for him so I added a selection.Kerry (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perhaps as this seems convincingly enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hope for improvement. The Guardian reviewed of his play, "The Return" :[36], and this: [37] is a pretty impressive list of hits for a simple google news search on "The Return" + "Reg Cribb". He's a keeper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 29 January 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Hernandez[edit]

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

This is effectively an unsourced BLP article. Steps were taken WP:BEFORE this nomination to locate evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources, but were not successful. Please do not hesitate to contact me should evidence of said coverage be found during the course of this nomination. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete like the nominator, I performed a search for sources, and did not find anything that I could call reliable. Perhaps such sources exist in the vernacular, but if so, they need to be produced here. The tone of the article is also a little troublesome in places. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Despite their use of the word "deleted", the nominator is asking that this list be merged back to the parent article from which it was split. Per WP:SK#1 and WP:ATD, this is plainly a matter to be dealt with through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Richmond Hill, Ontario[edit]

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

This list has just 26 names on it and should be deleted. The names should be placed back onto the parent article. The "notable people" section of city and town articles is a fundamental component of the article, and removing it--with so few names--lessons the quality of the article. The notable people section is also a red-hot area for unsourced content. This issue is addressed in WP:DOAL, which states that a disadvantage of a list is that it "can become bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in the encyclopaedia". Keeping the notable people section in the parent article will assure that the section is patrolled by more editors. Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities offers no advice, while US Cities states "if the section grows then it may be split out...into a stand alone article or list". As well, WP:SPINOFF states that "sometimes, when an article gets too long...an unduly large section of the article is made into its own highly detailed subarticle". With just 26 names, this list is hardly "too long" that it needs its own article. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Magnolia677: I think you might have jumped the gun a little too fast on this one. I've since added about 18 names to the list for a total of just under 50 names or so. Who are you to say the article is too short? There are thousands of stubs out there that are there for the purpose of starting and initiating content creation. Lots of the "List of people from x city" articles are in an incomplete phase because there are just too many people to track and include in the article. With this article created it will prompt more names to be added. I think the current length is just fine a constitutes an article. The list of notable people section in the Richmond Hill article before was clunky and jumbled and didn't include an easy to follow list and was also missing dozens of names. Also, with list of people articles like this, citations are not usually necessary; a few of many examples: List of people from Fort Worth, Texas, List of people from British Columbia, List of people from New York, List of people from Alabama. I think you may still have some "beef" with me from the past to be honest. You've been watching me like a hawk ever since. I want to let you know, as an editor I've changed drastically. Please get over the past because I really think you have not. Also User:PKT can you give some input as I see you reviewed this article when I created it as well as thanked me for its creation. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:01, 22 January 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. "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources", and whilst not all sources available online are cited in this article, in my opinion, she meets the general notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merin Joseph[edit]

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

Notability? superβεεcat 00:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being the youngest person to be something doesn't grant automatic notability but in this case there seems to be independent sources for the subject.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being the youngest is notable. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 22 January 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 12:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Lisabeth[edit]

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

Reads: "Kenny Lisabeth (22 June 1981) is a Belgian professional road bicycle racer."

Surely WP:NOPAGE applies and this should be redirected to some other page. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 02:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although additions have been made, this rider does not appear to meet the cyclists' notability guideline and there have been no more than a few "passing mentions" in the newspapers. No obvious redirect target and shouldn't nominations for AfD actually advocate for deletion?: Noyster (talk), 11:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On longevity articles (this is not one) we often advocate for redirection. I could have been bold and redirected it I suppose but catch flak for that so prefer to AfD in a topic where I'm not sure about notability standards. Legacypac (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete. Passing mentions that indicate that the subject may be notable in the far future, but not now. Esquivalience ^t 01:53, 29 January 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 per G7 . Materialscientist (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zhengan Chen[edit]

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

Questionable notability-the guy is only 13 years old and outside of the chess site none of these look reliable. Also a COI Wgolf (talk) 00:18, 22 January 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] ttp://www.dvdbeaver.com/Blu-ray_and_DVD_of_the_Year_2013.htm#label

[2] ttp://www.dvdbeaver.com/Blu-ray_and_DVD_of_the_Year_2014.htm#label

[3] ttp://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2015/12/the-ten-best-home-video-releases-of-2015/

[4] "Making Ricky". The New Indian Express.

[5] "Ricky Review: Rishab's Debut Lives up to its Promise". The New Indian Express.

[6] "Some Vedane and Some Bhavane for Rishab Shetty". The Times of India.

[7] "Rishab Shetty now turns costume designer for Rikki". The Times of India.

[8] "Will Haripriya get an award for her performance in 'Ricky'?". Daily News and Analysis. 12 October 2015.

[9] Twitter, Singapore (11 December 2014). "Unveiling the top 20 most followed Singaporean accounts on Twitter in 2014. Follow them today! 2014.Twitter.com". Twitter. Retrieved 25 January 2016. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

[10] Daryl, Chin (10 December 2014). "The Straits Times tops Twitter's list for news in Singapore". AsiaOne. Retrieved 25 January 2016.

[11] Lakeisha, Leo (25 December 2014). "They top online rankings". AsiaOne. Retrieved 25 January 2016.

[12] Jacqueline, Woo (13 August 2014). "Degree improved his prospects". My Paper. Retrieved 25 January 2016.

[13] "WardrobeTrendsFashion Featured On Cosmopolitan Singapore July 2012". WardrobeTrendsFashion. 14 June 2012. Retrieved 25 January 2016.

[14] "WardrobeTrendsFashion Featured On 8 Days (Magazine)". The Business Journals. 24 April 2012. Retrieved 25 January 2016.

[15] O'Neill, Joseph; Gorbis, Eda; Feusner, Jamie D.; Yip, Jenny C.; Chang, Susanna; Maidment, Karron M.; Levitt, Jennifer G.; Salamon, Noriko; Ringman, John M. "Effects of intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy on cingulate neurochemistry in obsessive–compulsive disorder". Journal of Psychiatric Research. 47 (4): 494–504. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.11.010. PMC 3672238. PMID 23290560.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]