Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 September	25 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Speedy delete G5 by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Live (2015)[edit]

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

All the references utilized in this article are unreliable and there is no indication of notability. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 23:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Important Kurdish film that relate to relevant event in Middle East, such as Refugees crisis, war on ISIS, Syrian Civil War, and Kurdish struggle, an important film in Kurdish Cinema, Iraqi and Syrian cinema. Mergapan2000 (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mergapan2000 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's culturally important, are you able to provide sources that are not first-hand or unreliable, unlike the Vimeo, IMDb and Wordpress links you included? I ask because I sincerely cannot find anything else about this film's very existence. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 09:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the film myself, but the search I did send me to IMDB which has the high rating of more than 9.8, also it lead me to the blog you mentioned, here is a link to have won wards at Nevada International Film Festival, here at a Spanish Film Festival. Maybe it is because searching the term "I Want to Live" is very common that you can't find exact result, I did search here with the directors and date and Kurdish name and more than 1000 different reference came up, I don't speak Kurdish but interested in Kurdish cinema, maybe someone who can speak Kurdish search in Kurdish for the film and might give more insight. Mergapan2000 (talk) 11:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The content of this article was deleted hours before it was recreated as I Want to Live (2015). DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 14:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DarthBotto: Would that not make this AfD moot? Pretty sure this would fall under WP:G4. --Majora (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting immediate closure: Majora is indeed correct that this falls under G4- I simply was unaware there was a previous version of this page from hours earlier, just as I was unaware of the KurdoKardir/Mergapan2000 sockpuppet investigation. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 20:56, 25 September 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S ori 52[edit]

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

The article makes one claim for notability, but it has no citation and is almost certainly untrue. It was discovered six years after the Keck Telescope began observations and was observed once with that telescope a year after that. I could find no peer-reviewed or secondary publications specific to this object, and only a total of nine papers mentioning including it in tables or listings. Lithopsian (talk) 23:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No source confirming its existence. Meatsgains (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TNT, specifically. S Ori 52 (the article doesn't even get the capitalization right) is a rogue planet candidate, and gets some discussion in that context. It's included in the table of rogue planet candidates at, fittingly rogue planet (and I'd advocate for a redirect if this title was correct!) -- although I'll note that the entry there is badly incomplete, and the estimated mass doesn't match the sources (the discovery announcement in Science gives a mass estimate of 5-15 M_J; in general, that article is neither well-researched nor well-referenced). I'm not sure whether or not S Ori 52 is independently notable, as most discussions of the object do so in conjunction with other, similar bodies associated with σ Orionis. In any case, what we have here is arguably worse than useless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British independence[edit]

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

Composite article that seems to be here to push an agenda. Most of the text appears to be copied from Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, and there is no evidence that this term is widely used. This is Paul (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concept too vague.Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tendentious agenda-pushing rubbish. I'd never heard of the expression British independence before, and I'm a Brit who tries to keep up with the news. Narky Blert (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, having read a little further this article reads like an editorial in the Daily Mail or Daily Express, both tabloid newspapers. Delete, delete, delete. Narky Blert (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Citing WP:NPOV as reason for deletion. Narky Blert (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Horrible POV-pushing, misleading, politically biased trash. The term itself is only used by those seeking political gain at the expense of rational thought. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is largely a POV fork of Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, and the concept behind it seems to be a breach of WP:SYNTH. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made up term with synthesised content added to suit agenda, anything of importance is already included in referendum aftermath article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK of Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. Relies on (and treats as neutral) a turn of phrase that is only used in a marginal segment of one side of the debate. Kahastok talk 08:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above.Charles (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete as per everyone else. Bondegezou (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep, well the topic looks like it meets WP:GNG and has existed for far longer than the Brexit controversy. AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP so the article needs to be dealt with in a different manner. The language in some of these votes sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Compare the situation to other independence/separatist movements across the world.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those independence movement articles appear to be about regions or groups within a sovereign state wanting independence from that sovereign state, whereas the UK already is a sovereign state, and thus independent in terms of making its own legislation. The result of the EU referendum is basically about leaving a club because the UK doesn't want to abide by the rules of that club. Most of this article is plain and simple original research consisting of spurious comments made by the usual suspects. A more accurate description of the topic might be British isolationism. This is Paul (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How about British independence from the Romans or Viking rule? In any case it's clear that an article about the term "British independence" is notable, particularly in light of recent events.--Prisencolin (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of British independence from Roman or Viking rule is meaningless because there was no Britain that could conceivably become independent. For all the time that a coherent Britain has existed, it has been either been one or two sovereign states according to all non-WP:FRINGE views. (Two being England and Scotland from 1603-1707.)

Like it or not, this article is about Brexit. "Independence" in this context is a highly POV-laden term and I see no benefit in pretending it isn't. If we were to convert this to an article on Isolationism in the United Kingdom it would basically need to be rewritten from scratch and this wouldn't be a sensible redirect. The correct procedure would be to delete this article and for someone who wants that article to write it in the normal way. Kahastok talk 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: The article isn't about Roman or Viking Britain. Scholars of history will, of course, be aware that Britain wasn't a country back then, but a collection of countries. Should it have existed, any independence movements would have been for kingdoms like Mercia and Wessex (incidentally, as a Midlands lad with roots in the Mercian capital, I'm not aware of a strong Mercian independence movement). I do think Dtellet is right to suggest including some of the information in other articles that are relevant to those topics before this article is sent to that big search engine in the sky, and hopefully someone can do that. Good information is worth keeping, so long as it is used in the relevant place. This is Paul (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there is one though. You live and learn. :) This is Paul (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is End of Roman rule in Britain, which presumably covers the ground I mentioned. In any case "British" and "Britain" could just refer to the island/s, without implying they are unified as a single state.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this article, British independence is used in reference to the United Kingdom. End of Roman Rule in Britain is irrelevant to this discussion, since it discusses a physical event, while the article we're debating here is about a fringe theory that, quite frankly, doesn't even have much of a fringe. This is Paul (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more of a joke or semantic twist than a fringe theory, after all no country can ever be totally independent of others. Besides, there's no question that the phrase itself is very widely used, so it would be made into a DAB or possible redirect at the very least.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well in terms of keep arguments we've gone from it being a serious topic to a joke in just a few sentences. I'm curious to know in which parallel universe this phrase is widely used. This is Paul (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Basically every reference in this article uses the phrase "British independence". In any case I suppose I do agree that, even if this topic is generally notable, the current draft should be nuked and started over.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of headlines, the only reliable source that mentions the phrase directly is The Sunday Independent. I would question the neutrality and use of the others. This is Paul (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with TIP above that British isolationism would be a more accurate, less POV laden rendition of the topic. I also agree with the general line of commentary above that the article as it stands is a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 09:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH of a hotchpotch of disparate quotes and tenuously related matters and issues to advance a neologism as an existent, unified concept. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. However, it is surprisingly well written and wiki-formatted for a new user, especially the 99 references in the first draft. Perhaps the user can tutor other new users on how to edit WP so expertly with no wiki-experience. - BilCat (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NPOV. This article is full of unsourced, tendentious claims. Not only that, but this concept is better explained in other articles that others have already brought up here. Omni Flames (talk) 22:37, 28 September 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 G7. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sparta Georgia Historical District[edit]

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

Article is unsourced, no external links and full of non WP:PROSE. Not questioning the notability of the subject, but the way the article is currently written it is prime for WP:BLOWITUP Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:06, 24 September 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 by RHaworth, who did not close the discussion. (non-admin closure) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly God[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced. If he garnered millions of plays, attribute that, which may warrant keeping. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had his Soundcloud linked as a reference but I'll cite it at the end of the sentence where I said he got millions of plays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe2Cold (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even with soundcloud source, not notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:23, 25 September 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. Seems like the award here may be enough to meet PORNBIO. No consensus on the GNG question raised by K.e.coffman, seeing as offline sources may exist but weren't found and discussed (yet). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlyn Ashley[edit]

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

This page having survived a previous deletion request just shows how we are still suffering from flawed decisions made on content back in 2005. The argument basically was "she appeared in lots of pornographic films, she must be notable." The problem is that no one actually bothered to demonstrate anything she appeared in was notable. The sources we have are 1-an interview with her, not what we need, 2-Internationa Adult Movie internet database, a non-reliable source, and 3-a bunch of sourcing from promotional stuff pornographic industry websites, that are about the PR creating awards that they give out in the pronographic industry like candy. Nothing at all comes close to meeting even the most basic GNG requirements that we have multiple indepth reliable 3rd party sources, none of the sources are 3rd party, nor are any indepth, and I am struggling to see any of the sources as reliable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I interpret WP:PORNBIO correctly this article should be kept. She won an AVN award (which seems to be the most industry relevant award for this profession according to WP discussion in other AFDs) two times and is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame. She may not really pass WP:GNG (arguable, I didn't perform a search), but this way she passes the SNG WP:PORNBIO (point 1 and 2) easily. Notability is therefore established. Dead Mary (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes Pornbio easily as Dead Mary pointed out above. Performer of the Year and Hall of Fame induction are two the highest achievement a porn performer can achieve and Best Supporting Actress is arguably one of upper tier awards as well. And the nominators assertion that the awards are "PR creating" is ridiculous especially in the case of her Hall of Fame induction as she retired several years prior. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject clearly meets the PORNBIO guideline with AVN Hall of Fame induction. In cases like this, I'll trust that this stub will be filled out eventually, even if that will take a while. As for the previous discussion, neither the delete nomination nor the keep votes cited anything beyond "notable"/"not notable". • Gene93k (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more or less per Gene3k. There may be a case for redirecting the page to the AVN Hall of Fame list, but it appears likely that sufficient sources to write a more satisfactory bio are available, if difficult to access online. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gene93k - Meets PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame where the subject is mentioned. There's zero WP:SIGCOV RS coverage on the subject in the article. The sources include:

Kaitlyn Ashley at the Internet Adult Film Database -- directory listing
L. Blisset (1997-04-28). "A Kaitlyn Ashley interview". RAME. Retrieved 2014-05-26. -- interview with the subject
Tod Hunter. "Hall Of Fame: Kaitlyn Ashley". AVN. Archived from the original on April 9, 2002. -- not an independent source
"Adult Video News Award Winners - 1994". RAME. 1995-07-18. -- primary source
"Adult Video News Award Winners - 1995". RAME. 1996-01-08. -- primary source
"2001 AVN Awards Winners". AVN. Archived from the original on February 3, 2001. -- primary source

There's a list notability and there's individual notability. Ms Ashley may be notable for inclusion into the encyclopedia, but no RS have been presented to build out a biography of the subject, per WP:WHYN. In this case, a redirect to a list is appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHYN is a part of the rationale for WP:GNG, not a guideline, and doesn't necessarily apply to WP:GNG. There is no requirement to have articles on notable topics. Unscintillating (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 17:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AVN Hall of Fame until someone actually finds sources that can clearly establish notability, which has not occurred here . Keep the bluelink to avoid future AfD debates and further waste of bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 07:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - NOTE: I've recently made some edits to the article in question here. The subject here "has won a well-known and significant industry award" (namely the AVN Awards for both Best Supporting Actress & Female Performer of the Year, which are both major & significant award categories) and has also been inducted into "an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame".

I would note that the recent proposed change to PORNBIO (which apparently still does not seem to have consensus?) did not remove the "is a member of the AVN or XRCO hall of fame" wording from PORNBIO. IAFD is also a reliable source for basic biographic information & adult filmographies, and there are currently no "primary sources" contained in this subject's article here.

I would also note that the nominator's "reasoning" for this intentionally POINTy AfD unfortunately sounds an awful lot like a case of "I don't like it". Given that this user's recent behavior at AfD was recently reviewed at AN/I, I would kindly caution them against further POINTy AfD behavior in the future. Guy1890 (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I don't believe that the comment immediately above is quite in compliance with WP:NPA, as it does not link to the ANI thread and omits the fact that no action was taken against John Pack Lambert at the ANI thread. The disagreement was resolved with no sanctions. Here's the thread: link. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 1 October 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. If content is needed for copying over, please ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have resigned from the Order of Canada[edit]

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

While I appreciate the work that has gone into this, it seems to me that this short list does little that cannot be more easily and better contained in Removal_from_the_Order_of_Canada#Resignation. Five of the seven names resigned in protest over the investiture of a Canadian abortion pioneer. The sixth for unknown personal reasons. And the last name appears to contradict the main bio article, which states that membership was revoked, not resigned. So we have a list of possibly just six names that, again, can be better addressed, briefly, in a main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. It's certainly appropriate content for us to maintain in the main article on the Order of Canada itself — but with just seven people to list, of whom as noted one doesn't even really fit the criterion demanded by the title, a standalone list isn't necessary as a separate topic. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence to say this concept is notable for a WP list.Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also most of the information is already in Henry Morgentaler. Coatrack? Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good catch, yes. I don't know if I'd call it a coatrack violation but this information is certainly better presented there, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - I don't see how this is notable on its own and I'm concerned that it may be a case of WP:COATRACK. This content is already contained in Removal_from_the_Order_of_Canada#Resignation -- with more context -- so I don't see a need to merge it. T.C.Haliburton^{talk nerdy to me} 02:13, 25 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A Google search for Narrative Capital Partners turned up no third party references (except for an opposition in the USPTO to a trademark application filed by Narrative Capital). The sources cited in the article either (1) do not mention Narrative Capital or (2) are self-published or unreliable (IMDb). Narky Blert (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this is honestly speedy material since the only claims of significance are thin, involving their clients (essentially PR-coated), none of this actually substantiates what could be improved for its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; 0 indications of notability or significance -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:17, 1 October 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. And, I've gone ahead and indef blocked the three obvious socks for disruptive editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Condensing Boiler Technology - the end game?[edit]

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

This is an WP:OR essay and personal opinion of the editor. A nice essay but neither encyclopaedic nor balanced. Should be a part of Condensing boiler Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that it would be good in another article, but only with sources. This doesn't have sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a worthwhile article — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohenKapur (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — RohenKapur (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It is a blog post. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't an encyclopedia article. It's an advocacy essay. Alsee (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Post Script Edit to see what this article is really about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problems_with_Condensing_Boiler_Technology_-_the_end_game%3F Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POST SCRIPT ON THE CALL FOR DELETES

There is a preponderance of delete demands for this article which you think is about Condensing Boilers, ONLY this article is not about that per se, it is about human behaviour insisting on putting profits before ordinary people, and financial interests running with technology notions that have had little or no scientific evaluation. In that regard, it is an article about suggesting that IF you look carefully, the earth goes round the sun, when everyone else agrees the sun goes round the earth. As such it may be a bit unusual at first, I dare say, in wanting to gather intelligent discussion about facts that must be in place before ordinary humans are punished to produce profits. The model par excellence I use is a particularly splendid one that demonstrates all the failures of human thinking (in my whistle blowing opinion). Also probably 5000 early deaths from fuel poverty are at stake, at least. I urge readers to be less damming and more thinking.

Encyclopedia articles do not all have to be about how many parts a car has with labels. This article invites you to explore (putative) manipulation and social extortion, and the Cloak of the Emperors New Clothes. I would like you all to contribute towards uncovering the failures of human behaviour in a key technology, not whether a boiler can condense or not. WP should be more than wrist-watch parts identification for the amateur horologer. I am identifying social structural failure in an elaborate technology that has in my estimation, managed to skip all the really valuable tests, including environmental. So, how did this happen, what can we do, how can we prevent this happening again? In finding how this technology should have been assessed, a blueprint protocol for any new technology to gain meaningful functional and environmental credentials hopefully may be laid down. That is the real article. We can then apply this protocol we have devised for other technologies and gauge their human value. Please help to get the ideas marching forward at that level. I already have plans to get independent tests completed and then report back on what the Energy Section of the European Parliament will say. Those points - and your salient contributions - will form the real body of this article.

Also, try as we might supporters of the argument have not been able to put KEEP on the AfD page. Dozens of pages on how to delete, NOTHING on how to keep. Why is this? Can you put this right so we have a real discussion going, Thanks.Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As suggested on the article talk page, please read WP:GNG . The decision here will be taken on assessing notability (and other things) but notability is the priority to be addressed. Please also read WP:OR and WP:ESSAY to understand why experienced editors are all voting to delete the article. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. On the Notability issue, (WP:GNG) the topic has little precedence because it talks of human factors around technological expansion without regard for social or environmental sustainability/honesty, despite posing as such. There are many psychological issues here, perhaps I can add a section to WP Machiavelli or WP Corporate Duplicity, well I stuck to expand Condensing Boilers. Even the article on Condensing Boilers on WP talks in apologetic platitudes about the technology (sorry). So where can we add notability, is not an easy task.

Yes the article does have an essay quality, but it cites many critical commentary articles from highly respectable pro-social newspapers (mostly from The Guardian, which for our international readers is the consistent pro-left serious newspaper of the UK). The article also cites figures - the number of early deaths from fuel poverty created by this technology, the Govt. supplied total deaths in the UK from this category (shameful), the fact that the computations for carbon are five times higher than the sales figures state, and the need to get independent corroboration of carbon output which the Govt. cannot be bothered to do after 15 years+ of this technology, with huge numbers of people commenting that something is terribly wrong. So we are into Campaign territory now.

And on the no OR (WP:OR) issue, the original Buildings Research Establishment (c.2003, now conveniently disbanded under new private ownership) gives the technology an absolute clean bill of health. We/I disagree with that finding totally with little or no remit. So we are challenging figures already in the public domain. Challenging the stated evidence with human experience in the field over 15 years IS new evidence. If a drug said it did x, but had serious y side effects and never did x as stated, it would be reported back and taken off the prescribe list - a system is in place to deal with problems and failures. NO such system exists for many appliances, including condensing boilers. We need the accurate science performance data which includes sustainability and longevity indicators, and a robust system for reporting problems, We have neither, only c5000 deaths associated with fuel poverty generated by this dreadful technology. And no one is speaking out. Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We hope you can now start to see why this article was put up, it is NOT about Condensing Boilers but the duplicity of humans and how they managed to use condensing technology to totally line their pockets. Whereas other compromised technologies might have some small benefit, condensing boilers are completely devoid of that (cf. conventional boilers) and as such, deserve a special mention in the annals of worthless endeavours. Why not mark this down as the start of a Campaign – The End Game. Why not discuss the components of human greed and failure in a govt. supported technology within an encyclopedia, rather than discuss components of a car in an encyclopedia? Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal soapboxing. See Talk:Condensing boiler Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes with tens of thousands of highly disgruntled end users, a BRE report that is being discredited even by BRE, and one of the largest boiler fitting and servicing firms in the UK confirming our detailed observations which really does amount to substantial and significant case controlled field evidence. Please refrain from your knee jerk slights for a second and consider this as a scientific call to arms to deliver the final much required conclusive studies. I have also requested you do not delete the paragraph we are trying our best to add to the Condensing Boiler page. Please consider the mounting ground swell of evidence. Oppose it by all means but please do not delete it. Thank you Diogenes Loquitur (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a blog post/OR. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article should be preserved because it highlights the problems with condensing boilers such a hugh cost with an environmental hit why are all these people wanting it deleted ?Kapurrb (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC) — Kapurrb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep this is a very important article with massively important social implications, it should be read and supported by all who have lost out using condensing boilers and that is a huge number. The studies called for must be implemented. Shakespearescript (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC) — Shakespearescript (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Utah gubernatorial election, 2016. as suggested, & according to our usual practice DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Weinholtz[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP1E of a person whose only demonstrated or properly sourced notability claim is being an as yet unelected candidate in a pending election. This does not get a person over WP:NPOL in and of itself; if you cannot provide credible and properly sourced evidence that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until he wins the election. And the sourcing here is fully 60 per cent to sources that cannot carry notability at all, such as his own primary source campaign website, a raw table of primary election results, a non-notable blog and his inclusion in a business directory to which he was able to submit himself -- and of the four pieces of real media coverage here, all four of them are routine local coverage of the gubernatorial race itself in media outlets that have an obligation to cover that gubernatorial race, and none of them nationalize enough to demonstrate that he's getting more than routine local coverage. Which means that the sourcing here does not meet the standard necessary to claim that he gets over WP:GNG in lieu of not getting over NPOL — it all just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at BLP1E, do you see advice to merge? Unscintillating (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination states (emphasis in original), "...his inclusion in a business directory to which he was able to submit himself". This is at a minimum a proof by assertion, including the part that this is a "directory". Bloomberg L.P. is one of the most respected news organizations in the world. The statement by S&P Global Market Intelligence on this page is, "The information and data displayed in this profile are created and managed by S&P Global Market Intelligence, a division of S&P Global.' Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Including someone in a directory is not the same as publishing substantive coverage about him — a directory listing is what the page is, as can be plainly verified just by looking at it. And S&P Global is a "source" where any CEO of any company can submit himself for inclusion in their database. S&P may be who actually formats the submitted information, but the information itself is submitted for inclusion by the CEO or somebody on his staff. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although the word "substantive" is used at WP:N, the sentence is part of a template that says, "Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus." As for being "plainly verified" by looking, I tested the hypothesis by looking at the page, but I see nothing that identifies this as a "directory". The page says that the "Michael Weinholz: Executive Profile & Biography" was created by "S&P Global Market Intelligence". The page says that it is "©2016 Bloomberg L.P". Unscintillating (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is speaking a different language than the other one is, obviously, because I fail to see anything about that page which would in any way mark it as not a directory: the whole thing is structured very nearly identically to a LinkedIn profile, and even the one section that actually has anything more than one bulletpointed item in it has a decidedly advertorial slant to (e.g. "In just six years, Mr. Weinholtz has transformed CHG from a predominantly single-lined provider of temporary physician staffing (locum tenens) into the healthcare staffing leader for professionals of all types") rather than representing neutral attention. It's not a news article about him; it's a résumé. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With a Google search on [directory definiton], Google provides, "1. a book listing individuals or organizations alphabetically or thematically with details such as names, addresses, and telephone numbers." The top link from dictionary.com gives, "Meaning 'alphabetical listing of inhabitants of a region' is from 1732; listing of telephone numbers is from 1908." The next link is from Merriam Webster's, and looking at the web page gives as the learner's definition, " a book that contains an alphabetical list of names of people, businesses, etc." The "full" definition reads, "

1.a: a book or collection of directions, rules, or ordinances

1.b: an alphabetical or classified list (as of names and addresses)

2. a body of directors

3. folder 3b

Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could add articles from both the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News ripping on Weinholtz for his biggoted campaign actions against Mormons and his stupidity in doing so in a state where the majority of the electorate is Mormons, but they are more editorials than news reports and mainly demonstrate that he is expected to be trounced in the race, and that he himself does not seem to be even trying to win the election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are the links [1], [2] written by a BYU professor who wants a viable Democrat party in Utah. This might add to some level of "notability for unbelievable political stupidity", however I would only buy that argument if someone could find a source from outside Utah that would call Weinholtz out for being the political idiot that he is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to tap you on the nose for expressing a personal POV instead of sticking to the neutral facts of the matter — but damnit, that is pretty incredibly eyerollingly stupid. But yeah, it's still not much to hang permanent notability on by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without WP:NOT rationales, the topic is not a candidate for AfD, as the topic is covered at Utah gubernatorial election, 2016 and a merge is standard procedure for non-notable candidates. Unscintillating (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that a person who types "Mike Weinholtz" into the search bar will get a list of search results that includes Utah gubernatorial election, 2016, and will thus get directed to the right place regardless of whether a redirect exists or not, AFD consensus for redirecting is a lot weaker and less guaranteed than it used to be ten years ago. Sometimes there's still a legitimate case for that, and that may be true here if reasons are provided for its usefulness, but it's not an automatic result of all AFDs on unelected candidates anymore (especially because such redirects do sometimes end up sitting on top of, and/or mislinking, more notable people with a stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for their name than the redirect subject has.) Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person who types "Mike Weinholtz" into the search bar (at least in my computing environment as I can't document all possible environments) does not find the article on CHG Healthcare Services, which IMO should have been found as part of the preparation for creating this discussion by making sure that there were no alternatives to deletion for this topic. WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.". Unscintillating (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This reply provided no evidence that anything has changed in the last ten years. This is a proof by assertion. Unscintillating (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need only look at the hundreds of AFDs about unelected candidates, especially in the 2010s, which plainly demonstrate that total deletion is now a much more common outcome of an AFD on an unelected candidate than redirection to some other article is anymore. If you really need some examples, then consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinnie vineyard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carly Saeedi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pamela Sossi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger La Plante. I could keep cluttering this discussion up with hundreds more examples of unelected candidates for office getting deleted rather than redirected, but there's a point at which it would just be overkill. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reply provided no evidence that "especially because such redirects do sometimes end up sitting on top of, and/or mislinking...". This is a proof by assertion. Unscintillating (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have, just in 2016 alone, personally caught at least 50 instances of unelected candidate redirects that were being erroneously linked to for unrelated people of the same name with much stronger claims to notability than the unelected candidate had. I'm not going to go through my entire deletion log to list hundreds of examples for you, but here's one: Don Loucks, which was redirecting to St. Catharines (provincial electoral district) because a guy of that name ran and lost there in 1981, but whose only actual link in articlespace was (and still is) from Florida State Seminoles men's basketball for a guy who was the team's coach more than 70 years earlier (thus completely destroying even the already-infinitesimal possibility that they were the same guy.) Does a one-off non-winning electoral candidate really seem more notable to you than a university-level basketball coach? Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This example of Don Loucks has as the deletion edit summary, "(nn political candidate whose redirect to a candidates list is blueblocking a more notable person with a stronger claim to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)". There is no WP:DEL-REASON given for the deletion. With the information available to a non-administrator, perhaps this was intended as a WP:IAR deletion. However, what cannot be seen by a non-administrator is what was lost in the edit history that the deletion has hidden from view. Something that remains unclear is why the process didn't go to WP:RFD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage is sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. The argument for BLP1E is weak given the national attention given to the CEO before the candidacy, but if an editor believes that the candidacy is how he is going to be remembered, that might be an option for them to do a full merge. Unscintillating (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this article showing any sources which demonstrate any "national attention given to the CEO"? Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you review the sources in the article, you will see that Bloomberg.com covers him as an executive of CHG. The Wall Street Journal has interviews for him from 2002 and 2004. According to the WSJ bio, he started a company in 1992, took it public in 1994, and "grew it into the nation’s largest healthcare staffing company" by 1997. Were you aware of this when you nominated this article for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as an unelected (and likely unelectable) candidate with no other real notability, he does not meet WP:NPOL. The coverage we do have is pretty much exclusively routine for a sacrificial lamb like Weinholtz. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page and a WP:PSEUDO bio at this point; no indications of notability outside of being an unelected candidate. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above discussion, especially the points by Unscintillating to merge to Utah gubernatorial election, 2016 and the uncomfortable truth written by Lankiveil, and past practice. I hate to point it out, but a progressive Democrat has almost no chance of winning in Utah in the early 21st century; the Beehive State is heavily Mormon/LDS and Conservative/Republican. For what it's worth, I had a client who was LDS, who ran and lost for office as a Democrat in Utah over 30 years ago, and he ended up moving to friendlier Upstate New York. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd not object to merging and redirecting. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thundercracker[edit]

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this character is easily the closest to notable of TTN's proposals, and I think sources should exist to support an article. I'll look around some. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had much luck - it's hard to sift through all the wikis, forums, and retailers. Are their websites that discuss transformers characters, creators, and development the same way some comic websites do? Some place with interviews and reviews of episode content maybe? If, not, then this is a regrettable redirect to List of Decepticons. All the sources show existence only, not notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge as above, unless some good sources can be identified. The article is very long, but much/all of this can be trimmed. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:17, 29 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:07, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shitposting[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy WP:Web and WP:NRV. The term Shitposting does not become notable by inheriting the notability of people recently associated with the term, like Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton. It is an interchangeable verb for any type of negative content published on the web, and it isn't notable enough to have its own wikipedia page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to WikiDictionary-- I find only passing mentions in Google books; insufficient for a stand-alone article on this phenomenon. This looks like a "meme of the week" similar to AfD of "Delete your account", which was deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did your WP:BEFORE search only include Google Books? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:NOTADICTIONARY however this is not even a legitimate term to be defined. Meatsgains (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mention searching for any references about this term. Did you? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the coverage in independent reliable sources are sufficient to show notability and sufficient to expand this little stub into a verifiable full article. If you had asked me last year, I would of hesitated on the notability of this term. Yes, there was some coverage, but it seemed like an "in-joke" exclusive to the 4chan/SomethingAwful-world, with no noticable effect on general society at large. I would of seen the 'Simpson Shitposting', 'Sienfield Shitposting' and related groups[3][4] as interesting, but still not yet enough for notability. Then the independent reliable source news coverage started rolling in this month about the use of shitposting in a political context. We now have major media writers and editors debating just how to properly write about shitposting, even writing full length articles about the phenomenon[5][6]. Shitposting is not just about political use, but it is the coverage of the political use that pushes it over the notability threshold. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ir's a dictionary word. Commonly used on every discussion board. --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is your !vote based on any searches for references, or based on your personal view of what is on discussion boards? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on the fact that it shouldn't be an article on Wikipedia because it's not encyclopedic. We already have Internet troll. Creating articles in thinly veiled attempts to carry on attacks of people by expanding search coverage is deplorable. --DHeyward (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:DHeyward: I'll thank you kindly to immediately strike-out your personal attack. Any further discussion of your breach of AGF can take place on my talk page, your talk page, or ANI. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not even remotely close to a personal attack. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This term appears to meet WP:GNG, as a thing that is being discussed and analyzed. The article is currently a stub, but there are enough sources to expand it into a full article that is distinct from "Internet Troll". I agree with 1Wiki8 that this was not the case until recently. Before recently, this term should be relegated purely to Wiktionary or similar, but now, there is actual discussion on the topic in general. Fieari (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would safely venture to say that the user means the sources already on the article, some of which are also highlighted in this discussion. Did you have other sources you wish to discuss? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDICTIONARY. This is, strictly speaking, a dictionary definition that can not reasonably be expanded into an encyclopedic article. Also note my '"Timbo's Rule 14" — "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Carrite (talk) 10:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the 2 strongest refs that show this topic passes NOTDICTIONARY and WP:NEO are:

Papa, what’s a shitpost? by John Biggs in TechCrunch
Shitposting: What is the bizarre online behaviour that could win Donald Trump the election? by Andrew Griffin in The Independent

Significant coverage of the term, wouldn't you agree? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I do not see it as WP:SIGCOV; mostly "24-hr news cycle echo chamber" type of sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the main debate here. The keep votes here are based on existing sources that we all feel significantly discuss the topic and thus passes the WP:NEO bar. But so far you're the only one to even start to discuss the sources from a delete perspective. Of course you are wrong, but it's good you are finally debating what really matters in this AFD. Cheers! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and be speedy about it. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, correct that Wikipedia is not a dictionary; not even a true word for a dictionary; slang, at best. Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete. This isn't urban dictionary. Pyrusca (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone's trying to abuse Wikipedia for political reasons. Kill it with fire. I might almost recommend sanctions against the article's creator. 2601:602:9802:99B2:3800:7AD6:CEA8:1343 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good place to recommend those sanctions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Go! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a general use beyond the immediate political topic, and the article documents it. The use of multiple references is indeed often a promotional technique, but it is the only way to demonstrate that something is actually in common use. I see no reason to think the article was created in bad faith,and I consider suggestions of this to be altogether outside the line of acceptable discourse,even for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – An option is to merge to Talking shit, or as a secondary choice, Trash-talk. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEOLOGISM with political overtones. Oldest source I saw was April 2016. The vulgarity is not by itself a reason to delete or delay, but fits in with WP:V's requirement that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Further, it is highly inappropriate that Wikipedia should pick one of the extant definitions and become a leading source for defining this concept. Unscintillating (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO concerns already addressed above, with sources that significantly discuss the topic. As for the 'Further' section above: it seems like you are making an argument that the article needs to be updated with an Origin section detailing how the article topic came about, and some type of 'popular culture' section detailing the article topic in relation to stuff like Simpson Shitposting and Sienfield Shitposting, etc. Of course, I agree with you that this little stub article needs to be expanded. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO states, "Articles on neologisms...are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." WP:NEO mentions "books" thrice, but there are no books on a WP:BEFORE D1 for Google Books that talk "about" the topic. Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the lede of the article...where the editor's have not used Wikipedia's voice to define the term, but they have picked a definition to quote. This article is self-referential humor. Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Now it's in the Guardian. Actually twice, one of which was months ago. It's in Wired In German. In terms of the current political usage, there's also context that goes beyond a simple definition. That's what makes it desirable to have an encyclopedia article. It would be shortsighted, and, frankly, elitist to delete this article because of "facepalm." We describe the world as it is, not how we'd like it to be so that we don't facepalm. As far as the charges of POV above, I don't think that's what's going on here. This can be described in a neutral way. As far as the comment that this isn't a "real" word, there are reliable sources that disagree. agtx 15:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources are suggested to include significant coverage of the article topic, per WP:GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryk72 (talk • contribs)

Well, in the Guardian one, it's in the headline and is the entire topic of the article. What it looks like here is that this is a term that's been in use for some time that now has more to say about it than a simple dictionary definition. agtx 15:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were the right Guardian articles linked; because the first appears to be about a technology millionaire's support for a political candidate; the second about a political staffer's resignation. Neither contain any information about "shitposting" as a topic itself. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the tone of this comment to be sarcastic and uncivil. I've said all I need to above. agtx 00:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm was intended. These sources don't provide significant coverage of the article topic as required to meet WP:GNG. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is not about the term, it's about the activities of an individual engaged in this practice:

Palmer Luckey, the creator of Facebook’s Oculus Rift virtual reality headset, is the secret backer of a pro-Donald Trump organisation aiming to turn the tide of the US election through “meme magic” and “shitposting”.

This does not amount to WP:SIGCOV on the topic of shitposting. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that argument is a touch pedantic. It's like saying an article about the 2016 Olympics doesn't represented significant coverage of the topic of the 2016 Olympics because all it talks about is people playing soccer and throwing javelins. This guy is shitposting, and he's doing it in a way that requires reliable sources to cover shitposting specifically. That combined with the articles cited above (from the Independent and TechCruch) are enough. agtx 02:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, while noting that this "practice" is not defined in the article. All usages of the word appear in quote marks. These usages are primary material, which is excluded from WP:GNG. These usages might be considered as evidence of a small amount of attention to the topic by citing the WP:N nutshell; but this is not the argument used. Unscintillating (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess one could say that it's a candidate for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia - however I do think that there's enough to write about its causes, effects, how to stop or filter it etc. as well as what it actually is (what's its relation to spam and trolling etc.). It's a major phenomenon on the Internet. --Fixuture (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTURBANDICT. There needs to be strong sources which analyse the term itself. I see a lot of examples of shitposting (in the newspaper coverage), but hardly any secondary work about the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider the articles in The Independent (Shitposting: What is the bizarre online behaviour that could win Donald Trump the election?) and TechCrunch (Papa, what’s a shitpost?) to be examples of that secondary work about the subject? -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't apply in this case because reliable sources have used the term, and its use is already popular on web forums, so its inclusion here isn't part of a campaign to increase its usage. WP:NOTDIC doesn't apply because the sources provided do provide encyclopedic coverage of the term beyond just the definition. The Independent discusses the demographics of shitposting, [7], and the Engineering and Technology article focuses on the political implications of shitposting. [8]. Other sources, like the piece from The Guardian above cover the real-world impacts of shitposting and go far beyond just mere dictionary definitions. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the coverage before this got more prominence in the US election, The Daily Dot wrote an August 2016 article about the fate of a FB page devoted to Simpsons shitposting, [9], and The New York Observer devoted a column to articles by reputable companies that are essentially "shit posts". [10]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

G $money[edit]

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

Not significant coverage, doesn't pass WP:GNG for notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In ictu oculi (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources don't establish notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:18, 2 October 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. MER-C 04:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ekta Movie[edit]

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

Searching shows little using either title. Not notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator Burley22 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Sumanreddy22. The statement that the "team completed their first and major schedule" may indicate the film is still in production, so WP:NFF would apply (and not be met)? My searches, including the Indian newspaper search, on various combinations of the film title and its writer/producer/director Suman Reddy, are finding nothing to indicate that this passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

good points Burley22 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I didn't find any reference to this film other than the Wikipedia article itself. It definitely is a non-notable film, or could very well be a hoax. Anup [Talk] 03:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just started thinking it might be a hoax, also. Burley22 (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a single thing out there about this film, which is highly suspicious given some of the people reportedly starring. It's pretty unlikely that the India newspapers wouldn't report on the fact that a recent winner of a popular TV show would be starring in a film with someone who won a national film award and a famous cricketer turned actor. That sort of thing is catnip to the dailies, who would be likely to report on any one of the linked actors performing in a new movie. For all of them in one film? It seems unlikely that they wouldn't report on it in some form or fashion.

I can't help but think that I've seen the name "Suman Reddy" pop up with AfD or speedy deletion at some point in the past. I can't find anything on the speedy deletion wikia or at AfD, but the name just sticks in my head for some reason, like I've seen a related article up for deletion in some form or fashion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting points @Tokyogirl79: these may in themselves suggest that WP:BLP is a factor here, if these individuals' names have been gathered into what appears to be a wannabe article? AllyD (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, does seem to be a BLP issue. Burley22 (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the above. Vanamonde (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Draft space. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam (2015 film)[edit]

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

inadequate references for notability; very minor prizes DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does seem to have received reliable sources coverage for example at a number of the links from this page here though not all of them are correct links, but am not seeing many reviews which could be due to its main release not having happened yet. It was nominated for a major award at one of the main film festivals - Nashville but did not win. All in all , think there is enough coverage for a borderline pass of WP:GNG but more reviews would be very helpful. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weak delete as per DGG changing !vote to Keep based on improvement by Theys York BlueSalix (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC) BlueSalix (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I put more sources that prove that the article is relevant. Moreover, it is not any movie that is recorded with Arri Alexa. In Brazil a miniseries and a telenovela gained notoriety after producing disclose who used Alexa. One of the titles went to the cinema, gaining great prominence.Theys York (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you are saying that another film of his was notable, not that this one is. It is only for famous directors that every film is likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ doesn't appear to me to yet meet NFILM. For example, in the list of links provided by Atlantic306, there's a mention in Variety -- but not a full review. And that's all I really find, in reliable sources: mentions. It may just be too soon, but we don't yet see the substantial coverage one might expect, especially for the directorial debut of the son of Mel Brooks -- who I see also does not yet have a biographical article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 websites that have complete articles about the film. One, two, three. If the film entering the Cannes Film Festival, will certainly have more sources. Delete unnecessary. It would be better to do a redirect, as here.Theys York (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has also this article from Variety, announcing the distribution of the film next month by Sony Pictures Home Entertainment.Theys York (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment strike through my delete. While not all sources linked to above are bona fide reliable sources we do seem to be inching in the direction of notability and I'm not sure what purpose would be served by deletion for an article that seems to be more just a matter of time, once the film enters commercial distribution or simply accrues more festival reviews, as it seems likely to do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Move to Draft:Sam (2015 film) - while reviews and festivals are generally good for showing notability of a feature film, notability cannot be demonstrated on the sole basis of reviews and festivals alone. There is only one type of source that's neither a review nor festival and its just barely enough to suggest that the Sam (2015 film) may or may not receive significant coverage, as it was picked up by a major film company. Coverage for the most part is relatively insignificant, as most of the sources make only a brief mention, but as a whole, do not cover the Sam (2015 film). Besides the screendaily.com source, reviews have been the only sources to give in depth information. ~~What we have here is just barely enough to keep this article (for now)~~. I say we give this one some time, as per the concerns by Shawn in Montreal. If coverage does not improve, then I wouldn't be opposed to a 2nd nomination and re-opening of this discussion. —Mythdon 00:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote, after further consideration, drafting allows to the content to be preserved, whilst keeping the article out of the article space until/unless there is more significant coverage. Since some films receive more coverage following release, rather than before, but given the absence of significant enough coverage at this moment, and while my above sentiments do still stand, I had forgotten all about draft pages. As I had previously stated, the page should be deleted if there is not more coverage following the release, but at the same time, I don't want my arguments about preserving the content at this moment to be as if I'm looking into a crystal ball, but while I don't think this page as it stood should have been created when it was created, because its already been creating, it would be moot at this particular moment to delete the page wholesale pending given time which more sources may or may not start to exist (as does happen with some films as I previously mentioned). Had I remembered that there are draft pages, I would have voted to move to a draft from the start. If there is more coverage following release, then move back to article space. Procedural change in vote, rather than an actual change in opiniion. —Mythdon 04:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON as not yet meeting WP:NFILM. Even with the recent improvements I don't see sufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This doesn't satisfy WP:NFILM as of yet. However from the looks of it, there may be more sources available in a year. I had a look at the reviews posted, but I do not really consider them as RS. Accordingly I think the best suggestion is to draft it. I'm pretty sure if it screened a bit more, there will be reliable sources talking about it, but till then keeping it in article space is WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the improvements to the article have not been convincing, unfortunately. Sourcing is weak and I don't see any indications of notability yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little late but better than never. I don't see enough of an adequate consensus. WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies _bark ^dig 19:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Current coverage is weak, but that can be expected to improve as we get closer to the release date. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Draftify. It'll be released later this month. There's a good chance it will get more coverage then. What we've got now are mostly press releases, announcements, and what look like self-published reviews to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per WP:A7 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Series[edit]

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

Unreferenced article that fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. Originally prodded, and endorsed by another editor, but the prod was removed by the article creator, who still has not added anything to establish notability. A previous incarnation of this article, at The Psycho Series, has been speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 three times by three different admins, but the article creator keeps recreating it. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided as evidence that this web content is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the matter at WP:RPP. Since the article title without the "The" was already salted, I wonder if an Afd is required. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the article's previous history until the article creator blanked his talk page, and I didn't check that until after I had (unfortunately) created the AfD. (trouts self) --AussieLegend (✉) 06:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7 and perhaps G4 (can't see the content of previous article). Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 06:52, 25 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa McConnell[edit]

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

I tried to find additional sources. While the name Melissa McConnell shows in a lot of searches, nothing was clearly a mention to this individual, and even at that most was not RS material that would go towards showing notability. Thus I was forced to examine the sources as they are. This is way below passing any inclusion criteria. Being Miss Louisiana USA is not on its own grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. The sourcing consists of a broken link that does not look to establish notability, and two links to Miss USA created material can not go towards notability at all. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability guidelines. Meatsgains (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreferenced essay which is not acceptable for a BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:57, 1 October 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Alcantara[edit]

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

dubious notability, the websites in the references doesn't say the things stated in the article Melaen (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support the OP argument that the references don't say anything that is stated in the BLP. While the first reference says "Amanda" it seems to be about someone entirely different. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all references fail verification; the last shows this person exists and has a blog. Even if this person is notable, the present article supplies literally nothing to have a good article based from - David Gerard (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete the only working reference link is to her own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article in its original state was a nonstarter, but it seems like there are enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. For example, this profile in Latina magazine. I rewrote the article with other new sourcing as well. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unconvinced - Safehaven86's new version is vastly better, but there's nothing that seems to pass WP:GNG. Are there any other criteria she might pass? - David Gerard (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to see whether better sources can save this JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - WP:GNG met. Thanks for your work @Safehaven86:. Hmlarson (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep - good work, all - David Gerard (talk) 09:40, 2 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Taylor[edit]

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

Taylor is a local meteorologist who in the past was winner of a Miss Hawaii USA title. None of this adds up to being notable. The sources are her IMDb page (not an RS), her bio page from her employer (not indepdent) and a "50 to watch in 2007" article from a San Diego publication, which does not add up to indepth coverage of her. My searching for additional sources came up with lots of unreliable sources, some of them were Wikipedia mirrors, and some non-reliable sources that rates her among the 25 "hottest" meteorologist. Nothing at all substantial. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local celebrity with no particular notable fame.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance; a vanity page at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 1 October 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 Miss California USA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Chapman[edit]

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

Ellen Chapman is only close to being notable for being Miss California USA. However this is not enough to make one notable, and is basically just one event. There is only the one San Francisco Chronicle source in the article that might come close to enough to pass GNG. Beyond this we have a blog post and a press release from the university the subject attended. A search for additional sources comes up entirely flat. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficiently notable to justify a BLP at this time, per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss California USA. I generally think that's the best way to handle non-notable beauty contest winners. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 2 October 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 redirect may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Wadsworth[edit]

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

Wadsworth was Miss Nevada. This alone is not enough to make her notable. I tried finding even additional links about her. The name shows up a lot, but no evidence that any of them are about this particular individaul, and none I found were from reliable sources (mainly Linkedin profiles) so no suggestion of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Nevada. Non-notable pageant winner, but people could search for her. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:23, 2 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huzrat baba sadeeq shah chishti[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources and orphan, fails to meet GNG And Bio ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 00:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the arguments made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huzrat baba natho shah chishti. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:TNT. Really?! Bearian (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete by all means and this is honestly speedy material, there's nothing at all close for a convincing article, let alone meaningful improvements. SwisterTwister talk 00:38, 30 September 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. No consensus due to lack of participation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20 Studio One Hits[edit]

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

Absolutely unremarkable copilation album, about which article creator has nothing to say. Wikipedia is not a listing of every worthless chunk of vinyl in the known universe. TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Can't you give it a chance? I have just started the article and you elect to shoot it down straight away. Quote: Absolutely unremarkable copilation album, about which article creator has nothing to say. Wikipedia is not a listing of every worthless chunk of vinyl in the known universe. . TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Worthless Junk?????? This is an important historical item and a part of New Zealand history and culture. Just have a look at the caliber of the artists on the album before you start charging. Please! Karl Twist (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it's always a good idea to include some claim for notability in an article which might be dubious, like this one. Compilation aalbums tend to have notable songs on them on nobody would buy them, btw.TheLongTone (talk)

I'd also suggest that the TV programme which spawned this is more likely to be notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, The albums have important historical and cultural value in New Zealand. They represent the Studio One competitions that were televised over six episodes in 1972 and I believe the same in 1973. The songs are supposedly (I haven't checked every single one) compositions by New Zealand and New Zealand artists. I'm making an educated guess here. I believe the songs that appeared on the 2 albums were only from the Studio One series and in that period of time never appeared on any other various artists compilations. As you can see here, "They are 20 songs that are composed and performed by New Zealanders for the N.Z.B.C.. They were shown on the Studio One television series. The songs were selected from over 2,000 original songs. >> Check here. , Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. With apologies to the article's creator, simply outlining a competent individual who had a reasonable job is not sufficiently significant for a biography in a worldwide encyclopedia. If somebody wants to create a draft article using the source found during this discussion, that would be a good way to proceed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sproull Thompson[edit]

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

This article doesn't meet general notability guidelines as the subject didn't do anything to have a stand alone article. Marvellous Spider-Man 14:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the article is clearly in WP:A7 territory, but a glance at the Google Books results linked above shows that he might be notable as a mountain climber. Why on Earth didn't the article creator mention this? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Sproull Thompson just happened to be somewhere where an important event occurred. See Whyte archives if you can get in. He was present for the failed historic climb which killed Phillip Abbot. See the Abbott Pass hut wikipedia article. I'm trying to correct history. These are known facts by those of us who know. There is no plagiarism I report the facts and cite the sources which have info. If you require a major study, and legal proof, I will require payment for the research. Sorry for the errors in my correcting history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betrway (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He was a mountaineer who fell and couldn't get up (at least by himself), but survived.[11] Could be redirected to Mount Thompson (Alberta), which is named after him, if anybody is willing to create that article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - article has nothing to show WP:NN / WP:BIO KylieTastic (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per KylieTastic. Yes, I'm sure some sources could be found, but there's not enough for a real stub. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 30 September 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. Unsurprisingly, few editors chose to get involved in this sometimes bad-tempered wall of text. I remind editors not to amend the contributions of others in discussions like this, to keep things brief and succinct, and to at least try to keep things collegiate and address the substance of the article rather than making insinuations about the motivations of other editors. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire[edit]

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

This is a very long article on a very specific topic, written entirely from primary sources, almost all of which are by one or both of the originators of the questionnaire, one of whom actually wrote this article. Another co-author has edited it. Virtually no edits of any substance have been by anybody without a close connection to the subject. What's missing is any independent evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no longer than the other articles on psychological tests. The "deletion" tag is therefore not justified, and the STQ page has significantly less grounds for being deleted, in comparison to the pages listed in my other comment. Please review the page again and, please, remove the "deletion" tag. I understand that your position of admin is often stressful, and it is easy to overlook the difference between an informative page and self-advertising. This page is just information about the most distributed test (among psychologists) in Russia that was adapted in Canada, USA and Australia in the 1980-90s. However, this test is a professional test, so only professional psychologists know about it, so it is useful for the general public to be aware of it. Hopefully this will help to clear the air.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a case of vandalism that should be reported

The user JzG called "Guy" (Guy) continues deleting the reference to American Journal of Psychology and now launched a discussion for a deletion of the page implying that the neutrality rule was violated. We suggest reading the material first: the authors of the STQ are Rusalov (mainly) and Trofimova (derivative), but none of them are main contributors. Yet, the page on this matter should be submitted by someone who knows the material. This is an encyclopedia after all. The user Guy makes cuts and changes without justifying them or commenting on anything in this talk page. I am going to reverse the changes (again!) - if you decide to have cuts please justify your actions. I understand that you want to improve the quality of the Wiki, so I suggest the same quality control over other Wikipedia pages related to psychological tests (much less verified by neurophysiological theories than the STQ). Here is the list for such important checking: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, Revised NEO Personality Inventory,16PF Questionnaire,Self-Directed Search, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment,Personality Assessment Inventory,Temperament and Character Inventory,Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire, Karolinska Scales of Personality, and other pages on psychological tests. I also suggest to ask the authors of the page Temperament test to rename it as that page is about testing dogs, but the title can be used for tests of human temperaments. Sulisw (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC) — Sulisw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

Factually incorrect on several levels, but who is "we"? You are a co-author on some of the papers, do you mean you and user:Iratrofimov? Guy (Help!) 19:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part is factually incorrect? "We" refers to scientists working in this field, who advise to admins of Wikipedia on something that they are not trained in. Problem is that sometimes admins take sides too, promoting one theory and suppressing the exposure of others. I hope we (Wikipedia contributors and admins) can keep the sociology of science aside when building this public encyclopedia. BTW, we, scientists, have to discuss if the Frontiers, a series of scientific journals, are sufficiently established journals to be cited in the Wikipedia. After all, they are indexed in all scientific catalogues, and prominent scientists publish in this series, but Guy deletes references to it as "predatory online journals". In this case the following pages should be deleted as well: Frontiers in Psychology, Frontiers in Zoology, Frontiers in Biology, Frontiers in Energy, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Frontiers in Endocrinology, Frontiers in Neuroscience, Frontiers in Information Technology & Electronic Engineering. I suggest just let the STQ page be, to remove the deletion tag, and appreciate the work of both, admins and contributors. I think none of us are getting paid for it, so we all do an important work with the best intentions, and we all want the same - to spread useful and often not known knowledge to people who need it. Sulisw (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. This stinks like a WP:FRINGE theory, but the publication list does not look completely bollocks either. Will give a chance before going delete.

Sulisw, if you want the article kept, could you point out a few (not more than 3) publications that qualify as reliable sources dealing with the subject in detail? Make sure to read the link before saying "scientific papers are reliable"; "reliable" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia.

I am asking you that because Wikipedia's standard of "notability" (again, this word has a specific meaning) require a few very good sources. It is very easy to have tons of poor sources, and it actually is a a common practice of proponents of unnotable theories to flood the "references" section in the hope none looks too closely.

Also, your latest posts are probably counterproductive. We are not discussing all personality tests', or scientific papers' pages. Wikipedia's objective is not to spread useful and often not known knowledge to people who need it; actually, it specifically is about well-known knowledge (in a broad sense), not cutting-edge research. Please keep your posts concise (else others will not read them). I also advise to read WP:COI (yes, even if you are not directly paid to edit Wikipedia).

Finally, I suggest you withdraw the "vandalism" accusation, which is simultaneously wrong (here is what vandalism means), laughable, and potentially grounds for blocking. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to the user Tigraan who reacts as an offended user Guy:

Re: "could you point out a few (not more than 3) publications that qualify as reliable sources" - the body of the article lists references ##3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 published in peer-review English-language journals plus at least 36 additional references to also English peer-review journals, plus 2 Manuals of the STQ. In case you don't know, Manuals are the description of technical procedures executed to make a test valid and reliable. Manuals are never published in peer review settings - this is just a format of the psychometric industry, however papers supporting these manuals are peer reviewed. In any case, in my humble opinion, N of sources here already exceeds 3.
Re: "notability" - comes from the references cited. No need to be mentoring here. The page is not citing Russian-language sources, and I personally couldn't even read it, but from my communication with Russian psychologists, the STQ is known to every psychologist in Russia. The N of English-language citations shows that it was noted here as well.
Re: "wikipedia is not to spread the knowledge" - we have to bring it to the attention of the owners of the Wikipedia, and review if the definition of encyclopedia applies to wiki in this case. If the owners agree with Tigraan's position, then wiki will risk to be just another tabloid source, recycling the most known and flashy (noticed) news but not informing people about something that was discovered earlier. Using "notability over value" criteria, wiki will end up having a number of cites related to the production of, for example, Star Wars and none related to physical concepts helping to build actual space ships and to calculate turbulence in passing through Mars' atmosphere. Most mathematical concepts are not known to 99.999% of people, and not known to 70% of mathematicians - simply because a single person can't learn everything right away, even when it comes to his or her profession. Yet, wiki's owners consider the pages related to these concepts useful. Notability is therefore not a priority, and shouldn't overshadow the value of knowledge. We have many very specialized areas or knowledge in which only experts know the terminology. Common people need to have access to this knowledge - and this is why encyclopedias were invented.
the comment comparing the STQ page to the other tests' page is relevant here, as equal standards should be applied to similar pages. Otherwise there are reasons to suspect reviewer's bias.
I also wonder how the expressions "stinks" and "bollocks" are compatible with the authorization of this page for deletion.

I therefore call for authorized parties to review the "marked for deletion" status of this page and to return this page to a functional status.Sulisw (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no idea at all how Wikipedia works, whihc is not a surprise as you're mainly here to promote your own work. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sulisw, we can forgive you for not understanding how Wikipedia works. We do not even require that you get familiar with the guidelines. However, you must display some basic understanding of English and consensus-building.

I specifically said no more than 3 references to avoid the WP:BOMBARD effect. Yet you cited 7 refs, in addition to others. I will therefore disregard anything except ref 3, 5 and 6. (Manuals for foo are never independent sources for foo - otherwise, our articles on acupuncture, dowsing and others would need some rewrite of dubious value.)

Ref #3 is from Personality and Individual Differences, impact factor 2013 1.8. 39 cites since 1989. That is a somewhat decent article, since the cite list does not look too much puffed up by self-cites.
Ref #5 is from Educational and Psychological Measurement. Same IF, but only 9 cites since 1996. That is not even a niche subject, that is one person and their PhD's subject, so clearly not worth much notability-wise.
Ref #6 is from the same as ref #3. 9 cites since 1993, so same comments as ref #5.

So all in all, delete - maybe there was some one-time interest back in 1989, but clearly this has not made an enduring academic impact. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP and WP:FRINGE 74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OP. This is just not that notable a topic, or at least its notability has not been demonstrated by the cites provided. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fringe, Really?!! I just found this discussion and I felt speechless at first... Here is the definition of a Fringe theory: "an idea or viewpoint which differs from the accepted scholarship in its field." Nowadays you don't need to be even a psychologist or a psychology student to know that verbal (word production and word understanding) and motor areas of the brain are regulated by different areas. This is main stream science. The first description of such specialisation came from Paul Broca, however it was Alexander Luria (Rusalov's PhD supervisor) who is known as the father of modern neurophysiological assessment. Specialists know that practically all neuropsych testing batteries are based on Luria's methods - just get the Luria-Nebraska neuropsychological battery and compare it with any other. So Luria's theory describing different functions of different brain areas is not Fringe, and his student Rusalov experimentally found a similar specialisation in neurophysiological systems regulating temperament traits. Main stream science supported the idea that physical-motor functions are regulated (partially) by the prefrontal and parietal cortex and verbal-social functions are regulated by the temporal cortex. There is therefore full support for all STQ components, and there is not a single publication against the theory behind the STQ.

If you attack the STQ test per se, then the word "theory" doesn't apply. FYI - there are about 20 000 psychological tests around the world and NONE of them has the support of majority of scientists, because tests are not theories but made-up instruments, like various screwdrivers with various handles, plus they are culture-specific. Unlike the table of multiplication, there are no universal tests, or ideal tests, even though some test developers like to claim universality and perfection. Each research group uses its own "pet package", and they often violently compete with each other for access to a "microphone", i.e for a space in journals. Since peer reviewed journals didn't want to accept the Big Five test in the 1990s, this group created 4 journals for followers of their test, and now they cite each other, boosting their citation index. Their notability is, however, just a bubble: neuroscience found no correlates for their scales. Still, the field of psychometrics exists, in spite of this imperfections, and unless you are a psychometrist working in the field&culture where this test was appropriate, please don't make a judgement about its notability. I don't know what is your motivation for putting down this site but I wish that voting on professionals issues was done by professionals. Plus you have to justify your vote. Iratrofimov (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges in judgement[edit]

I don’t think that I deserve being insulted by the user who goes under various names "JzG"="Guy" and Tigraan, and who now appears to be a rather biased admin. I am not as young as he is, I am not British but just a 4th-generation Canadian, and, as a career scientist with an MD and 2 PhDs I don’t have as much confidence in scientific merit of journals impact factor (IF) as he does. So, we have differences, and we need to work on consensus being realistic about imperfection of the informational sources, in a civilized manner. Yes, I am not an admin, but I wish there were easy ways for admins to judge specialized wiki pages without much expertise. IF or citation rating are, perhaps, “better than nothing” to facilitate this judgement, but they should not be the main criteria. For example witness the problems now arising in the literature on the role of fat in heart disease. High impact journals promoted these ideas for decades and now we learn how much they were corrupted by second party influences. As another example, a paper linking vaccinations to autism had a very high citation index, even while long known for being a total fraud. It has been also recently shown that a citation index is often busted by “within-group” citations. Ultimately it is the scientific community and the test of time which determine the value of any work, and some concepts/products/tests get accepted so well that they are simply used but not being cited in recent publications. I could mention many areas of mathematics that are supported by small groups of researchers – does this user believe that such knowledge should be ignored or abandoned because it hasn’t achieved notability within the general public? By this logic the page Law of Continuity should not exist as the number of people who know/use this law is likely lesser that the number of people who used the STQ in their practice and research in the past 30 years.

Yes, I contributed only to a few Wiki pages in the field and I am sure that the majority of other wiki contributors do the same amount of modest editing, also only in a few areas. Putting down occasional contributors and bullying them is counterproductive. This user/admin also insists that I promote my own work. The STQ (or another page – Activity-specific approach) is not my work, I am not even a psychologist, I simply used the test for my studies and found it useful. I already commented on this matter and I find the continuing accusations rather insulting. I think that if this user-admin feels that his own personal information on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG might benefit the Wiki’s readers, the information about a useful psychological test coming from a verified neurophysiological research has no lesser value. We, scientists and the readers of the English Wikipedia, have to be aware of good scientific products that are used in English-language countries even if they were initially developed in other countries a couple decades ago.

We all wish we had easy criteria for selection what is valuable and what is not in science, or basic knowledge, but we don’t. Science is not only complex, in terms of its structure, concepts, multi-cultural sources and opinions, but also is “a living thing” that constantly changes. A mechanical approach to judgement on what is valuable what is not, and even what is notable and what is not, just by looking at citation statistics is not sufficient. After all the IFs of journals depend on applicability of the topics in industry, and this bias is overlooked here. When this user/admin points out to the low impact factor of the journals cited let me note that the majority of journals in psychology have low impact factors, in comparison to journals in medicine, biology, physics and engineering. This is just specifics of the field of psychology. Surely the user does not believe that much of the knowledge within psychology should be eliminated from the Wikipedia.

Let me also mention that notability of many TV shows and movies that have pages on Wikipedia is high not because of its quality but because there was a financing of an advertising, to make these shows notable. I hope the judgment on the value of the Wikipedia pages will not depend on finances spent on “notability” by advertising departments of the show producers. Science has significantly less finances for advertising than a show business, so, if we are not careful, the Wikipedia will be an encyclopaedia of show business but not of anything related to reality, including science. What is even more challenging is that historically we had a iron curtain over some cultures and so the “notability” of their scientific products did not catch up yet with the level of notability of Kardashians. This doesn’t mean that we have to continue with our Western ignorance to non-Western science. In my view there is science, not Western science or English science.

Having said this, I sincerely sympathize with the challenge for admins in dealing with scientific pages on the Wikipedia, as they have very limited ways to verify notability and value. That is why the early version of the STQ page had so many references (and I agree it was too many for the final version), to show notability of the STQ. I suggest we close the discussion about notability of the STQ as a general test (seriously, this is the test used by all psychology students in Russia, now multiply it on the N of students graduated over the past 20 years, plus it was adopted for school and daycare kids and was used in educational studies). The notability of the English-version of the STQ is based on at least listed references in English, and, considering the average IF of psychological journals, the list indicates sufficient notability (I mean, for a psychometric test, not for a movie). I also suggest that I edit the page leaving references to manuals on the page (they are the source of obligatory psychometric information of the tests) and reducing the references to 5 or so. That’s how I see the consensus.Sulisw (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulisw: First of all, 80% of your post above falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, to which I already pointed you. 100% also is a big wall of text which only masochists like me will read (again, already pointed to you).

Secondly, you made incorrect assumptions on my person (...Tigraan, and who now appears to be a rather biased admin. I am not as young as he is, I am not British but ...). Being reluctant to give out personal information, I will not disclose my age here, but my user page claims I live in France and speak French natively, and I am not an administrator.

Thirdly, user pages and the main Wikipedia pages are not the same thing; JzG's talk page will not pop up in internet searches. (This does not mean a pseudo-WP-page is appropriate in the User: space, see WP:USERPAGE).

Wikipedia is not about the truth. Sorry. It is about verifiably notable topics. (Arguably, it is already biaised toward the inclusion of scientific theories that have not been covered by mainstream media.) While I (and probably most Wikipedians) agree that impact factor is not a perfect proxy for reliability, it gives a (refutable) indication of the outreach of a journal.

If the mainstream press or mainstream scientific press is corrupted and valuable theories are silenced, there is nothing we can do about it. However, in the case of the MMR vaccine controversy, you will notice that although the media fuss makes the subject notable, the scientific literature pretty much agrees that it is bollocks, and that is how the article describes it.

When this user/admin points out to the low impact factor of the journals cited let me note that the majority of journals in psychology have low impact factors, in comparison to journals in medicine, biology, physics and engineering. - well that is an argument, which you could support with sources, maybe. But Surely the user does not believe that much of the knowledge within psychology should be eliminated from the Wikipedia. - please either withdraw that, or stand by it and go at the administrator's noticeboard (be aware of WP:BOOMERANG though). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ please see my comment above on the theory underlying the STQ, especially the Compact model. It is based on classic Alexander Luria theory separating sensory-orientational, programming and energetic "blocks" (in his terms), and such a separation was fully supported by neuropsychological studies over the past 60 years. Rusalov's idea of a separation between motor and verbal traits of temperament was based on main stream neuropsychology as well (he was Luria's PhD student), and corresponding neuroanatomical areas of cortex were identified. So the model of the test is not new at all and is based on notable science. Iratrofimov (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote stuck. Unscintillating (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I didn't see what was happening here for a while - who in a right mind would want to delete this page? The STQ is classic in Russia and now it is used in Australia and Canada. Those who are deleting it - are you psychologists? You obviously judge by wrong sources or have issues with the origin of the test. It is known for its use, it has 12 scales that are commonly cited in Russian psychology - this is if you worry about notablity. If you worry about citations with impact factor - the given list is sufficient. We, psychologists, will never have an international collaboration if we will not exchange information about our tools, and the STQ is a rare one that made it to the West from Russia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvSpar (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SvSpar and Sulisw:, could you provide reliable sources saying that the STQ is classic in Russia ? If so, editors will probably reconsider. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Russian textbooks and University programs on psychological assessment that include the STQ info/model/test - I hope you have someone who knows Russian to check it out - I pulled it from the shelves in our University's library. I don't have an immediate access to the Rusalov & Trofimova (2007) book (published in English) but this book has an overview of studies done both in Russia and outside of Russia by 2005. I remember looking at it and noticing that several studies from 2006 and up were not included, but this book might be a start for English readers. I ordered these sources chronologically and took only this century's sources. I am sure that it is not a complete list. I just pooled it of the available print during a day, so other users might add whatever they know. I also know that many PhD-s are done using the STQ and these young scientists probably publish their material somewhere, so it is possible that I miss their references.

Кураев Г.А., Пожарская Е.Н. (2002) Психология человека. Курс лекций . -- Ростов-на-Дону: Учебно-научно-исследовательском институт валеологии РГУ.

Моисеева О.Ю. (2002). Психодиагностика индивидуальных особенностей личности. Учеб. пособие. Владивосток: Морской государственный университет им. адмирала Г.И.Невельского.

Ракович Н.К. (2002). Практикум по психодиагностике личности. Минск: Современная школа

Батаршев А.В. (2002) Темперамент и свойства высшей нервной деятельности: Психологическая диагностика. Москва: ТЦ Сфера,

Долгова В.И., Шумакова О.А., Латюшин Я.В. (2004) Учебно-методический комплекс по практике в педагогическом училище (IV курс очной формы обучения). Челябинск.

Гилев О.Б. (2005) Практическая диагностика в сфере профессиональной деятельности. Учебное пособие. Уральский государственный университет путей сообщения. Екатеринбург.Карпов А.В. (2005) Психология труда. Учебник для студентов вузов. - Москва: ВЛАДОС – ПРЕСС.

Романова Е.С. (2005) Психодиагностика: Учебное пособие. Санкт-Петербург: Питер.

Бурлачук Л.Ф. (2006) Психодиагностика. Санкт-Петербург: Питер.

Райгородский Д.Я. (2006) Практическая психодиагностика. Учебное пособие. – Самара: Бахрах-М.

Лисицын, С.А., Тарасов, С.В. (2006) Профессиональное развитие и поддержка педагогов, работающих с детьми группы риска (Методическое пособие). Санкт-Петербург: ЛОИР.

Карелин А. (2007) Большая энциклопедия психологических тестов. Издательство: Москва, Эксмо.

Батаршев А.В. (2007) Диагностика темперамента и характера 2-е изд. - Санкт-Петербург: Питер.

Гребень Н.Ф. (2007) Психологические тесты для профессионалов. Минск: Современная школа.

Посохова, С.Т. Соловьева, С.Л. (2008) Настольная книга практического психолога. - Москва: АСТ; Санкт-Петербурк: Сова

Каратерзи В.А., Насонова Ю.В. (2008) Интегральные тестовые методы: учебно-методический комплекс. Учебное пособие. Изд-во: Витебский государственный университет им. П.М. Машерова.

Макшанцева Л.В. (2009) Учебно-методический комплекс «Практикум по профориентации», Московский городской педагогический университет, Институт психологии, социологии и социальных отношений. Москва: МГПУ.

Голев С.В., Голева О.С. (2010) Психодиагностика темперамента. Учебное пособие. Херсон: ВМУРоЛ «Украина» ХФ.

Малышев И.А. (2010) Более 2000 психологических методик, тестов, тренингов, опросников и деловых игр: библиогр. указатель литературы (1996-2009 гг.). Ростов-на-Дону: ИУБиП.

Ребрилова Е.С (2015) Рабочая программа дисциплины «Практикум по Психодиагностике», Специальность 37.05.01 «Клиническая Психология», Специализация «Патопсихологическая Диагностика и Психотерапия». Тверской государственный университет, Тверь.

Тютюнник Е.И. (2015) Рабочая программа дисциплины «Психодиагностика в практике социальной работы». Санкт-Петербургский Государственный Институт Психологии и Социальной Работы. Санкт-Петербург, издательство ГИПСР.

Here is the psychological testing cite http://psylab.info/ - where the STQ is mentioned on 2 pages, [Опросник структуры темперамента Русалова] and [Опросник формально-динамических свойств индивидуальности] – both descriptions are very old, incomplete and in some places wrong, but this at least gives you an idea that the STQ “exists” in people’s minds. There is also an Ukranian site with similar matter - http://psychic.at.ua/ - [Опитувальник структури темпераменту В.М. Русалов (ОСТ)] and I believe there is a similar Belarusian cite.

I hope this will help to cool down this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SvSpar (talk • contribs) 20:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Thank you, SvSpar for your valuable contribution. I don't have access to Russian texts here since I haven't lived in Russia for the past 20 years. You are right, there were studies done with the STQ after 2005 that I see occasionally online, so the Manual-2007 is incomplete and should be updated. However, it is hard to collect the information about non-English research, and especially Russian research while living in North America. I checked the 3 cites that you have listed above: they indeed have rather old and only basic information, but this should at least show that the STQ has been on the psychometric market in Russia and Ukraine for a while Iratrofimov (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote stuck. Unscintillating (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination does not cite a WP:DEL-REASON. The concern, stated without using policy-based terminology or WP:IAR, to have "independent evidence of significance", is directly answered by using WP:BEFORE D1 on Google web and Google books and reading the snippets. Unscintillating (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notice Portions of this edit have edited the text of other editors. See the Edit History for details. Unscintillating (talk) 19:53, 2 October 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Arthur[edit]

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

Non-notable new musician, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. One EP with non-charting material. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete- pioneer musician for ending the bro country era in country music with revolutionary sound

do not delete This musician meets requirement #10 by having made appearances on 650 AM WSM as well as The Heartland Network

Do not delete- Multiple news headlines as well as publications about this musician

Don't Delete Facebook has awarded this artist verification— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyshay (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

(1) We do not keep articles based on subjective assertions of significance like "ending the bro country era in country music with revolutionary sound"; until a reliable source explicitly credits him with that, it means nothing. (Especially since I just checked a couple of his YouTube videos, and completely fail to see what's revolutionary about his sound — sure, he draws on an older country sound instead of sounding like Florida Georgia Line, but there's nothing inherently innovative about trying to bring Randy Travis-style traditionalism back.)

(2) Criterion #10 requires a national network, not an individual radio station, so WSM doesn't constitute a notability claim in any way, shape or form. Heartland Network might count for something, but not just because you assert it — you must reliably source that he got playlisted on the Heartland Network for that claim to count for anything.

(3) Multiple news headlines as well as publications? Kindly show some, because there are exactly zero of either being cited in the article as written.

(4) Facebook verification is not "awarded" as a "prize", but is given to anybody who fulfills the process needed to get their account verified — I could get my Facebook account "verified" if I cared to follow those steps, and I'm a nobody — and it does not constitute a notability claim in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have removed boldface from three comments above, all of which were posted by the same user, Ashleyshay. Only one formal !vote is allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NN in general. Appears to have no WP:RS at all, just associated sources (own twitter, website etc) KylieTastic (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, and no reliable source coverage shown to get him over WP:GNG. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can source him better than this, but Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a musician automatically gets an article just because his own self-published PR or his social networking presence verifies that he exists. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 24 September 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 Where's_Wally?#International_editions. Not strictly the consensus, but redirect per K.e.coffman seems like a reasonable compromise, and if nothing else, keeps Template:Where's Wally? from gowing a redlink. That, plus WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of international variations of Where's Wally?[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC This is just a translation dictionary, no substantial content about any of the topics. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic comments relating to red link

Comment (off-topic) On my screen, the this article's entry is displayed as a red link, and this happens in both Chrome and Firefox, I am running Windows 7 64-bit. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went on this article with a couple of VPNs, and it gives the same problem, I don't know why, when I click on that link, it gets to this AfD with no problem. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem with nominating my articles. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 03:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought up the issue at WP:HD. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Where's_Wally?#International_editions. I looked for sources, but couldn't find ~~him~~ them... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That section is also a translation dictionary and nothing else, may be worth deleting, I don't see the point in merging. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge into Where's_Wally?#International_editions as per Champion - really needs a reference though. KylieTastic (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Where's_Wally?#International_editions; anything useful could be pulled from the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:55, 2 October 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. 72.192.155.108's proposal may be better suited for a draft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General theory of collaboration[edit]

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

Procedural AFD. Double-PRODded with "An unsourced article that reads like a personal essay and admits its topic does not exist." I concur. There might be redirect targets, but this is not a title that will be useful. David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:NOR. The first sentence of the article is "currently there exists no consolidated, general theory of collaboration" – how on earth has it survived for eleven years?? Joe Roe (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said in the PROD - "An unsourced article that reads like a personal essay and admits its topic does not exist." Edward321 (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is possible, sometimes, to have a well-sourced, well-written article about a theory that doesn't entirely exist yet. See, for example, Grand Unified Theory or unified field theory. This, however, is not one of those times. This a personal essay, essentially unreferenced, about a topic with essentially zero currency in anything like a reliable source. In the interests of fairness, there's some discussion of what could be this topic in: Ruchkin, Judy (1973). "Cooperative Myths and Realities". Educational Learning. 30 (7): 659–663. --but that's a long way from showing notability, and it does nothing to support the content we have here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A user posted the following keep argument on an incorrect page; I am copying it over to here, but take no stance regarding it myself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikipedia page identified as "Theory of Collaboration" is marked for deletion. I'd like to suggest that instead of deletion the page be improved. Rather than using only the word "collaboration" consider including the word "cooperation". In 1949 psychologist Dr. Morton Deutsch (Columbia University) proposed a theory of cooperation that is the foundation of a number of successful practices such as, but not limited to, shared decision making, cooperative learning (in education), and Quality Circles. Doyle and Strauss wrote a comprehensive document explaining how to make meetings work by using collaboration / cooperation, entitled "How To Make Meetings Work". Although it was written in the '70s it remains accurate and effective as a productive practice leading to consensus in business as well as education. David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson (University of Minnesota Twin Cities) have extended and applied the theory of cooperation to educational practices, to conflict resolution, and to peacemaking practices. DeVries, Edwards and Slavin have also contributed to educational applications of cooperation among students. There is a very long and impressive line of research demonstrating the effectiveness of cooperation / collaboration in educational settings. Often "collaboration" is used when discussing practices among "adults" while "cooperation" is more likely used when discussing interactive practices between and among children and youth.

Deutsch, M. (1949a). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group processes. Human Relations, 2, 199–231.

Deutsch, M. (1949b). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–151.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Social interdependence: The interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. The Center for Cooperative Learning, The University of Minnesota.

Slavin, R. (1977a). Classroom reward structure: An analytic and practical review. Review o Educational Research, 47: 733-650.

Slavin, R. (1977b). How Student Learning Teams can integrate the desegregated classroom. Integrated Education, 15: 56-58.

Slavin, R. (1977c). A Student Team approach to teaching adolescents with special emotional and behavioral needs. Psychology in the Schools, 15: 77-84.

Slavin, R. (1978). Studet Teams and Achievement Divisions. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12: 39-49. 72.192.155.108 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but we would literally need to throw away the present article and write a completely new one based on actual sources - David Gerard (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Snow Delete. Although I am sure the original author had good intention, this is WP:OR. The creator of this article states upfront "currently there exists no consolidated, general theory of collaboration..." Someone would have to read through some sources to discover what the intended topic is, and then write that article, based on those scholarly sources. The author did link to this [12] as a source in the middle of the article. Although after a quick scan I tried to figure out what the topic might be - I cannot. At the same time, Wikipedia might already have sufficient coverage within the two articles entitled "Collaboration" and "Conflict resolution". --Steve Quinn (talk) 07:03, 2 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Zarb[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Every result on Google either briefly talks about Zarb, or is about a non-notable story. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MorbidEntree - _{(Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥)}(please reply using {{ping}}) 07:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He might be eligible to keep an article that was much more substantial and better-sourced than this, but being a leader of a labour union does not grant a person automatic inclusion rights for an article which just states that he exists, the end, and references that only to a single dead link. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually do better than this, but this as written is not enough. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see how the head of a country's largest trade union could not be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of adequate sourceability Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adequate sourceability is pretty obviously shown by the searches automatically spoon-fed above by the deletion nomination process, which are there to be examined before commenting here rather than ignored. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MorbidEntree specifically addressed in his nomination statement the fact that they did examine the "spoon-fed" sources, and found them all to be glancing namechecks of his existence in articles that weren't substantively about him. "Google hits exist" is not automatically the same thing as "quality references that would fulfill the demands of WP:RS and WP:GNG exist" — one has to examine the depth and quality of the Google hits, not merely their number, and MorbidEntree did examine their depth and quality. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I wasn't referring to the number of Google hits - I didn't even look at the general web search - but to the depth and quality of the sources found by the other searches that find mainly reliable sources. For example the first four of the news hits found are from independent reliable sources and have significant coverage of Zarb: [13] [14] [15] [16]. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to General Workers' Union (Malta) - Notability not shown fails WP:BIO and only ref currently is just a dead link. KylieTastic (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the head of the general Maltese workers union for 16 years. He got plenty of coverage in Maltese national newspapers for decades. A quick Google search shows that very easily. There are lot of articles which are full scale coverages of his person. He also was awarded the Xirka Ġieħ ir-Repubblika, which is the Maltese highest honour awarded by the government of Malta. I expanded the article a bit and added some reportages about him in national Maltese newspapers (like the The Malta Independent, Times of Malta or the Malta Today). Its still a stub, but it should demonstrate the notability. Keep in mind that those are only a selection, there are hundreds of articles on him and events where he was involved out there (and probably even more offline), as he had a a lot of impact in Malta. He is clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and the article should therefore stay. Dead Mary (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, per the sources found by the spoon-fed searches above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources provided above establish notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 2 October 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 Transformers: Generation 1. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 17:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sixshot[edit]

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge somewhere if anyone cares about this content. The article's a mess and the sources do not fill with confidence that the subject is notable. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Transformers: Generation 1 and List of Transformers: Energon characters per my reasoning here. —Mythdon 09:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above reasoning! Aoba47 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 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 Geostatistics#Scientific_organisations_related_to_geostatistics. Discounting one "Keep" given that "it's interesting is not a valid criterion. Given the previous AFD just a few months ago, I suggest that if someone wishes to recreate the article they should first prepare a draft and have that reviewed by an uninvolved party first. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

European Forum for Geography and Statistics[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Vilni restored non-redirect content in Special:Diff/736153346, but no sources have been added that would establish notability and show improvement. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC) Sources are given as references and external links to UN, Eurostat, EuroGeographics, EFGS own website and conference pages. Please do help improve, if something is done wrong. The help text in wikipedia and GUI is not of much help. Vilni —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interesting organization and well documented.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Geostatistics#Scientific organisations related to geostatistics as per the close of the AfD two months ago. Nothing appears to have changed since then to warrant a stand alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Will the redirect include the information in this article?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dthomsen8: In the event of a redirect, the article history is preserved, so any useful material can be picked up from article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisations-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 24 September 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 22:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International Art Museum of America[edit]

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

no significant coverage of this museum. founder may deserve an article for his scandals, [17], as a reincarnation of the Buddha and his theft of money in China. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I'm seeing a lot of frankly puzzled coverage, like this. And "What the Hell is the International Art Museum of America?", the San Francisco Chronicle's blog asked, back in 2011. We do seem to have just enough independent sources to meet GNG. I wasn't sure what was meant by scandal but then I see that it's this odd character. Anyway, the museum still seems to be extant. I think it meets WP:GNG but fails WP:AUD, for local only coverage. That could be the reef upon which it founders. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Please do not delete the page. I am working on making the necessary changes. Thank you for your patience and understanding in this matter. B3May15 (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, user B3May15 was formerly user IAMA, the initials of the organization, and is a connected contributor.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter how much WP:AUD this has, the article is completely without inline citations to reliable references. This makes it completely worthless. WP:DEL7, with WP:IAR added because WP:V is a core content policy. This article may be suitable for draftspace. Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:SIGCOV in Huffington Post and San Francisco Chronicle. Safehaven86 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by User:Safehaven86, which push this past WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 3 October 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. No consensus for a particular outcome has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Jalna Mosque bomb attack[edit]

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

There is no death in this bomb blast and the sources are like news report. This can't be a major terrorist attack. The death mentioned in the article is about a separate blast.

This should be deleted as per WP:NOTNEWS and failure to meet WP:EVENT and WP:CRIME. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, unless there is any strong evidence that this was part of a wider campaign, in which case merge to the article about that wider campaign. There's no point in having an encyclopedia article about a crime, serious though it is, that only reports it as news rather than give any context to that crime. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per good sourcing. per the fact that the bombing has recieved plenty of media attention overall. The delete !vote above points to a guidelines without an specifying, also fails per OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the typical "we can not have articles about everything. irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG, many good sources present. Pratyush (talk) 17:20, 30 September 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) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bøsdalafossur[edit]

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

Unsourced stub with large overlap with Sørvágsvatn. ᗞᗴᖇᑭᗅᒪᗴᖇᎢ (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Unsourced" is not a reason for deletion, see WP:RUBBISH; what counts is the existence of sources, see WP:NEXIST. Being a stub is not a reson for deletion either, see WP:IMPATIENT. The so-called "overlap with Sørvágsvatn" is obscure to me, they are distinct natural features, and per WP:GEOLAND, named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. A few references to book sources have been added. — Sam Sailor 22:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve: "Unsourced" is not a reason for deletion but you can by adding refs to the article. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup. And it has sources now. Smartyllama (talk) 13:56, 28 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AIMMAA[edit]

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All India Mixed Martial Arts Association, now its reappared, however its different enough that CSD-G4 does not apply here. Sorry folks, but we need a new afd to axe this again, so here we are... TomStar81 (Talk) 08:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did not vote on the original AfD and will hold off voting on this one. The nominator of the original (User:Haribhagirath) seemed to have a bone to pick with the organization and did a convincing job bringing into question the validity of the references. I see nothing that changes his points. Sections of this article were removed due to copyvio and I can't help but think the remainder has the same problem hidden somewhere.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also didn't vote on the original AfD, but my search of the sources didn't show me significant independent coverage of this organization. The sources either aren't independent or consist of a single passing mention in the articles. As the article currently stands, I don't believe WP:GNG or WP:NORG is met. Papaursa (talk) 05:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources don't establish notability because they are either connected to the organization or are trivial coverage. Fails GNG in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 2 October 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 Scaled Composites. Not a lot of discussion here, but from what there is, the redirect seems like the best compromise. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scaled Composites Tier 1b[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as tagged in November 2014. Sources in the article do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 11:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is unrelated to astronomy. Why not inform WPSpaceFlight and WPRocketry? (not everything space is related to astronomy) -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scaled Composites where the topic is mentioned, with its own two sub-subjects. This does not appear to be independently notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this is clearly a notable subject, the problem is the name. The topic of this article is the space launch platform composed of SpaceShipTwo and White Knight Two. This is the only article on the entire platform. The name of the platform changed to become "unnamed" from its former designation of "Tier 1b"; the evidence of the platform existing is that they've already built hardware and crashed a spaceplane. Then problem is that there is no current name, only this outdated name. GNG is established with the multitude of sources referring to WK2+SS2 everywhere. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It would need a descriptive name, such as Virgin Galactic manned suborbital spaceflight platform ; from the inception of the project, the Scaled share has been reduced to much less as it is today. Virgin bought out Scaled's share of TSC. Then after the crash of Enterprise, the development program was taken over by Virgin. So the platform is now Virgin's and not Scaled's. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 10:28, 25 September 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. MER-C 04:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Throttle Back Sparky[edit]

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

The band is listed in some notable music sites as allmusic, MTV but none of their works are notable as they are not mentioned in third party independent sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I LOVE the name of this band. But the article lists no sources or third party references. Seems self-generated by one of the band's member's, perhaps? ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable musical group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet the inclusion criteria in WP:BAND. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 2 October 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. None of the keep arguments is addressing the concerns about lack of notability/sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singalila In the Himalaya[edit]

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

Singalila and Himalaya is notable.

But, currently this movie is not notable. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find RSes in here. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: MalluFilms 06:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.73.206 (talk) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its available for viewing and is motivational . User:Vayalikaval^{User talk:Vayalikaval}
_{Note to closing admin: both the IP and Vayalikaval seem to be single purpose accounts that have either only commented on this AfD or on one other page TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)}[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources that establish it as a notable film. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 2 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Pishyar[edit]

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

Sources either don't mention him, aren't significan't coverage or aren't reliable. Purely insufficient for a BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- strictly a vanity page. Notability is not inherited from more notable entities that he owns. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 2 October 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. No real agreement over whether the sources listed help this person meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhwani Gautam[edit]

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

Against my better judgement but at the insistence of that small part of me that insists that if there is a shot - even a long one- that an article can stay here gamble on it, I am listing this here for feedback on whether or not there is enough information in the article to justify keeping it. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete : The director has done only one movie, which is notable, but there are not enough sources to establish the notability of the person himself. Coderzombie (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has done Romance Complicated, Tu To Gayo 2016^[1]^[2]^[3] His ongoing project includes Patel Vs. Patrick^[4]^[5] ^[6] This is his third Gujarati Commercial Film as a filmmaker. Paperpopscissors (talk) 10:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Tu To Gayo". Facebook.com. Retrieved 20 September 2016.
^ Abhimanyu, Mishral (16 September 2016). "Fresh Face contestants rule Gujarati films". No. Ahmedabad Times. The Times Group. The Times News Network. Retrieved 20 September 2016.
^ Jha, Lata (9 September 2016). "Film wrap: 'Baar Baar Dekho', 'Freaky Ali', 'Sully' highlights of this week". No. E–paper. HT Media Ltd. Live Mint. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
^ "Patel Vs. Patrick the film". Facebook.com. Retrieved 20 September 2016.
^ Nath, Ojasvi (30 May 2016). "Singer Darshan Raval to debut as an actor with 'KK Patel v/s Patrick'". radioandmusic.com. R&M Radio & Music. Retrieved 20 September 2016.
^ "Darshan Raval becomes highest paid actor in Gujarati film industry". Desh Gujarat. Desh Gujarat. 15 March 2016. Retrieved 15 September 2016.

If the filmmaker in question isn't notable himself, how was I able to successfully link him to other pages on wikipedia using the Link Tool where he has been mentioned and the edit history is a proof of the interlinking.Paperpopscissors (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already mentioned, notability of a film is not same as notability of the film maker. "able to successfully link him to other pages" is not a measure of notability either. Coderzombie (talk) 11:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources,like Facebook, are not reliable sources for notability. Coderzombie (talk) 11:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough news coverage of Dhwani Gautam himself so why can't his presence be notable. His films Romance Complicated and Tuu To Gayo have catalysed the growth of the industry and driven the audiences to the theatres where no one even bothered a second look at earlier Gujarati Films. That is a notable contribution to the Film Industry.^[1]

References

^ Mishra, Abhimanyu (17 September 2016). "Multistarrer Gujarati films are BO moneyspinners". No. Ahmedabad Times. The Times Group. TNN. Retrieved 21 September 2016.

The wikipedia page of Abhishek Jain exists. Now he too has two films as a filmmaker to his credit and a tie up with a Bollywood Production house. Now if he as a personality is worthy enough to stay on Wikipedia why not Dhwani Gautam? Their outlook on filmmaking varies but they are more or less on the same trajectory at the same time in the same industry.

"Self-published sources,like Facebook, are not reliable sources for notability" I agree that self published sourves are not reliable sources for notability; however, news coverage in one of the country's highest circulating newspaper, The Times Of India or it's various editions is, which have already been cited wherever necessary. And this coverage includes bits about the filmmaker as well as his films. If he didn't have any news value or if his personality was not notable, why would he or any of his works be covered in the paper? Paperpopscissors (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: As far as notability of subject is concerned, I'm inclined to believe he is notable per WP:GNG after seeing these sources. There was another issue, WP:NPOV, that I fixed reducing article to one-sentence; anyone interested can to re-write it using available sources. Anup [Talk] 02:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject not notable and fails GNG. Article appears to be promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, what part of article does read "promotional" to you? Dhwani Gautam (born 22 September 1985) is a filmmaker, director and writer who predominantly works in the Gujarati Film Industry and Bollywood, this one? Or Filmography section? Anup [Talk] 05:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Anup. Numerous in-depth sources from news outlets such as The Times of India would mean that the subject meets the WP:GNG. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The argument for keeping seems to be that other film-makers who have some sort of connection with him are notable. That doesn't mean much. No reliable sources subtantially about him. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never used that argument. My !keep is based on our GNG and DIRECTOR policy. Subject has apparently received significant coverage in multiple RSes. I'm listing here some for anyone interested may want to talk a look at:

"Multi-tasking is important in glam-world: Dhwani Gautam". The Times of India.
"Dhwani Gautam shoots for his next film in Ahmedabad". The Times of India.
"Playing a negative character is always exciting: Dhwani Gautam". The Times of India.
"The music will be loved and enjoyed by all: Dhwani Gautam". The Times of India.
"Language has never been a barrier for me: Dhwani Gautam". The Times of India.
"The Gujarati film industry is in a great phase right now: Dhwani Gautam". The Times of India.
"Dhwani Gautam shoots for his next film in Ahmedabad". The Times of India.
"Gujarati film gets its own website". The Times of India.
"The new-age directors of Gujarati cinema". The Times of India.
"Dhwani Gautam's take on marriage". dnasyndication.com.
"ફિલ્મ 'તુ તો ગયો'નું શૂટિંગ શરુ". NavGujarat Samay (in Gujarati).
"Tu to Gayo, HEER and Patel vs Patrick are Hottest Upcoming Gujju Movies of 2016". Vishwa Gujarat.

These are only some listed from search results page-1. Except one all are English-language newspapers. IMO this kind of coverage in national media for a person working in regional cinema suggests nothing but notability for him. I recognize COI issue which has become a 'new-normal' thing for India-related topics. We can deal with that by applying appropriate protection level.

It should also be noted that, there are only 2 English language newspapers in top-10 largest by circulation in India (coverage from remaining 8 being in regional languages are hard to found online. If there's something left out, and one still needs more sources, it is the case where they should assume WP:NEXIST.) It is highly disturbing that notability of India-related topics are assumed from coverage in English-language sources only. Anup [Talk] 10:20, 11 October 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. Kept with no prejudice against speedy renomination. No argument for deletion provided by nominator. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Christoph Borchardt[edit]

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

His achievements may ride to the rescue here, but the man's article is a mess. Seeking input on whether to keep and improve on dynamite and do over. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I've updated the article with a little bit more information I could find, improved the writing and corrected some syntax errors. I'd be happy for feedback on how to improve it further. -WikipedianUser (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR No argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lots of sources provided, no clear agreement amongst participants as to whether they are sufficiently in depth to demonstrate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ellaway[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. No substantial review performances or recordings (The NYT article is a about a ballet performance for which he conducted 2 violins, not an orchestra ) DGG ( talk ) 13:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Performances that have been reviewed and cited in this article include The Times, Telegraph of London and The New York Times. Such broadsheets cover notable performers and performances. The ensembles and venues listed are some of the finest in the world who are known for working with notable performers. The New York Times article refers to "Concerto Barocco,” set to Bach’s great concerto for two violins. In addition to the two soloists, the concerto is scored for strings and basso continuo.

The Telegraph, February 23, 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/geoffrey-norris/4786560/Orchestra-Europa-a-new-orchestra-with-a-refreshing-approach-review.html
The Times, March 19, 2010: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/arts/music/classical/article2465986.ece
The New York Times, January 22, 2014: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/arts/dance/balanchine-evening-ignites-city-ballet-winter-season.html?_r=0
RorySolow (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as News searches are not finding better, the listed sources are still not actually substantial enough for his own article, which certainly would still need improvements considering it's still quite thin; there's also no convincing library holdings. SwisterTwister talk 03:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please find below additional articles, festivals performances, recording, and reviews (in addition to the reviews from The Times, Telegraph of London, and The New York Times) that I believe support the substantial category. I would be happy to flesh out the article should we reach consensus.

Articles
BBC Music Magazine, Scott Ellaway, February 2009: https://www.yumpu.com/it/document/view/9278136/rebecca-franks-bbc-music-magazine-scott-ellaway
Ellaway to face the music, November 28, 2008: http://www.abergavennychronicle.com/article.cfm?id=419&headline=Ellaway%20to%20face%20the%20music&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2008
National 150th anniversary celebrations end with a bang: https://www.qebarnet.co.uk/new_and_noteworthy?newsID=304

Festival Performances
Cheltenham Music Festival, BBC Radio 3, July 13, 2009: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/radio/2009/wk28/7day.shtml#sat_radio3
Festival Nuits Romantiques – Festival – Artistes: http://www.nuitsromantiques.com/fr/festival/artistes/festival-artistes.htm
Festival de musique de Besançon Franche-Comté, September 26, 2013: http://www.festival-besancon.com/programme-jour-par-jour

Recording
Sweet, Sacred Feast!: http://www.worldcat.org/title/sweet-sacred-feast-in-celebration-of-the-quincentenary-of-the-birth-of-saint-philip-neri/oclc/939681010

Reviews
London Mozart Players, October 18, 2007: http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/1769291.London_Mozart_Players__University_Church
Orchestra Europa, Oxford Playhouse, January 24, 2008: http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/1991459.Orchestra_Europa__Oxford_Playhouse
Orchestra Europa, Sheldonian Theatre, April 30, 2008: http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/2237847.Orchestra_Europa__Sheldonian_Theatre/
Orchestra Europa with the BBC Singers, March 9, 2009, Geoffrey Norris, Daily Telegraph: http://www.musicalamerica.com/news/newsstory.cfm?archived=0&storyID=20013&categoryID=5
Europa fits the bill, July 8, 2009: http://rangefree.blogspot.com/2009/07/europa-fits-bill.html
Orchestra Europa, Chichester Cathedral, July 13, 2009: http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/orchestra-europa-chichester-cathedral-1-1512939
RorySolow 09:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As the above comment offers additional independent published reliable reviews for inclusion, and even though they do not readily appear in News searches, I believe that they justify a case for keeping the article. I notice that the article was created two months ago and I would suggest that we allow a little more time for contributors to develop further. I have started the process, the sources now listed in the article I believe remedy the substantial test (Avenue Magazine, BBC Music Magazine, Classical Music Magazine, The Oxford Times etc.), and in addition I have found a few other sources that merit inclusion. CourteousMel ( talk ) 11:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RorySolow, could you or an administrator please strike one of your two "keep" votes, please. Richard3120 (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: the problem is that the majority of these sources make a better case for having an article on Orchestra Europa, and redirecting Scott Ellaway to that article instead. Richard3120 (talk) 01:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Richard3120, this process is not a vote as such but an opportunity for discussion. You make a very good point about establishing an article for Orchestra Europa. However, the sources listed refer primarily to Scott Ellaway as founder and his talent as a conductor in his own right “Behind the baton with Scott Ellaway" (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/behind-baton-conductor-scott-ellaway-2141355). The reviews listed are about Scott Ellaway working with the London Mozart Players (Oxford Times), New York City Ballet (New York Times), BBC Singers (Telegraph), and of course Orchestra Europa as Artistic Director and Founder. Therefore, I still believe that the article in question should be kept but fully support an independent article being created about Orchestra Europa in the near future. CourteousMel (talk) 02:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- CourteousMel, I'm a bit confused about your statement that "this process is not a vote" because you are the person who voted "keep", and I am the one who has only commented on the discussion so far... However, my main concern is that RorySolow has voted "keep" twice, and each person is only allowed one vote, so the second one should be struck. I haven't made up my mind yet on this particular article. Richard3120 (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard3120 I try to keep Wikietiquette in mind when editing or adding comment. However, I am sure the second Keep as posted by RorySolow can be adjusted by him or an editor as necessary. CourteousMel (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Changed my second post to a Comment.RorySolow 07:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a newbie to Wikipedia, with a background in music, I recommend keeping this article. The New York Times review refers to Scott Ellaway as guest conductor. Usually, that means all repertoire on the program will be conducted by the visiting conductor, in this case that includes Kammermusik No. 2 by Hindemith. I also notice, via a quick google search, that Scott Ellaway was being considered as a future music director. The above reviews listed meet WP:CREATIVE FortunaMajor (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Concerns about the article are centered around lack of notable sources, that the article is a little thin on the ground, or that the sources listed are Orchestra Europa centric. In response a list of notable sources have been produced (Telegraph, Times, New York Times, Oxford Times, Chichester Observer, BBC Music Magazine, Classical Music Magazine, Gig Magazine etc.) that include reviews, editorial, and recording. It has been stated that some of the reviews listed are Orchestra Europa centric. The reviews speak of Scott Ellaway as a conductor in his own right or refer to his work as a conductor before discussing other subject matter. The original author has offered to flesh out the article utilizing the sources listed above if consensus is reached. Whatever the outcome, as this is public record, I would recommend that the closing admin strike out the last sentence put forward by the nominator that includes the following sentence "(The NYT article is about a ballet performance for which he conducted 2 violins, not an orchestra).” This is an inaccurate statement as "Concerto Barocco” is scored for two soloists, strings, and basso continuo. CourteousMel (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Anyone who conducted substantial notable works with notable orchestras at notable venues meets WP:NMUSIC. I won't harp on the mis-characterisation of his performance for the New York City Ballet at Lincoln Center. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:24, 1 October 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian_Ethnic_Cleansing_Team[edit]

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

Not notable. A group with 2 known members (ever) found liable under an administrative act (a fine payment) that has since been rescinded. Section 13 is no longer part of the Canadian Human Rights Act for over 3 years. There are no more active links or references. The only call to notability is a media source referring to the case as "landmark ruling" for issuing a small fine against non-entities. It's all Kinda of moot now. At this point this entire article is about a group who never did anything put post a single message online very shortly after 9/11 WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Clearly a WP:GNG and WP:WEB fail.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 18:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Moving stray vote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete Not notable. A group with 2 known members (ever) found liable under an administrative act (a fine payment) that has since been rescinded. Section 13 is no longer part of the Canadian Human Rights Act for over 3 years. There are no more active links or references. The only call to notability is a media source referring to the case as "landmark ruling" for issuing a small fine against non-entities. It's all Kinda of moot now. At this point this entire article is about a group who never did anything put post a single message online very shortly after 9/11 WikiErrorCorrection (talk) 02:35, 10 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alden Carrithers[edit]

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

Not-quite notable minor league player, failing both BASE and GNG. Wizardman 13:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for baseball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, he does not pass the notability guidelines for baseball players. Firkin Flying Fox (talk) 18:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NBASEBALL and although he played in the high minors long enough that I suspect he got some decent coverage somewhere, I have not been able to find enough to come close to meeting GNG. If someone wants to dig deeper and finds some significant coverage I would be happy to change my !vote. Rlendog (talk) 21:50, 29 September 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 1-methylcyclopropene . Seems like the best compromise between a range of delete/merge/redirect opinions. Also WP:ATD -- RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3-Methylcyclopropene[edit]

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

Chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is simply not a notable chemical compound. Although there are passing mentions in the scientific literature, the only report that I can find where the 3-methylcyclopropene gets real attention is this one, where the conclusion is simply that it compares unfavorably with 1-Methylcyclopropene (a notable compound) in inhibiting ethylene responses in plants, so this really does nothing to establish notability. ChemNerd (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete in agreement with the assessment above. Also by deleting it, we send the message that Wikipedia is not in the stamp collecting business nor is Wikipedia a dumping ground for random factoids. Articles can be very short but they must be based on some idea of notability. Its not a big deal though. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As ChemNerd has pointed out it seems to be a content fork of 1-Methylcyclopropene. A brief note on that page would seem suitable. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - The article is really a WP:DICDEF. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not to "send a message" but per lack of notability. If we were to redirect, I think to cyclopropene as the parent subject (broadly construed) is more appropriate than to 1-Methylcyclopropene; but in any case, it would be a weird redirect, and likely to surprise readers. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1-methylcyclopropene as the only notable verifiable thing worth saying about 3-methylcyclopropene is in comparison to this compound, and can be based on sources like this book. There simply aren't the sources to support a stand-alone article. EdChem (talk) 18:31, 30 September 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. I suggest having someone who can read Japanese look at the four references provided here before renominating. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akisutozeneko[edit]

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

Can't find any sources to verify or improve article. GScholar comes up blank, GBooks appears to give a Wikipedia mirror and some unrelated junk. A simple Google search is similarly fruitless. The ref in the article is to a page which I think is a Japanese slang dictionary? Like an Urban Dictionary type thing I'm guessing? I don't know any Japanese but here's the Google Translated version. Can't find a way that this page meets WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. Ajpolino (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese article seems to be properly referenced, _for once._ Four books with ISBN codes. Perhaps not enough for own article, but merging to something else?Fruitmince (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what exactly are you referring to? The Google books search? The first result ("Divination: Dream Interpretation, Tarot, Chinese Astrology...") appears to be just a collection of Wikipedia articles? I couldn't find anything about Akisutozeneko in the other books but maybe I just missed something. If you found other refs, please link them here and maybe we could expand the article rather than delete it.Ajpolino (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fruitmince was very clearly referring to the sources in the Japanese Wikipedia article, which are, surprise, surprise, in Japanese, so wouldn't turn up in a search for sources in the Roman alphabet. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN numbers from Japanese wikipedia (referenced properly in article) with worldcat links:

Fruitmince (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Yes, I definitely missed those. Unfortunately I don't read any Japanese. @Fruitmince: any chance you can pull any useful info from those? Or see if they back up what's in the article. If not, we can ask at WP:JAPAN? Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering its one of the properly referenced Japanese wikipedia articles (for _once_, they seem to be use refs sparingly there...) Google Translate with dictionary check should bring up _something_. ※〶 07:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 24 September 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Machado (German actress)[edit]

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

Delete: minor non-notable actress. Does not meet threshold for WP:NACTOR. Quis separabit? 16:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit of further information on the French Wikipedia, which points to some notability beyond work as a film actress. —Kusma (t·c) 11:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 24 September 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 and redirect to International Cheer Union. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

World Cheerleading Championships[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely unsourced, and I see no significant improvements over the version that was deleted the last time. Still fails WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if the International Cheer Union is indeed the peak cheerleading body, then this article could be deleted with a redirect and appropriate information incorporated there. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I hate the layout per WP:ALLCAPSSUCK and wish there was concrete information about every championship event, it seems pretty clear that this annual contest is regarded as a legitimate world championship for a competitive sport and has generated sufficient independent published coverage as such to pass GNG. See, for example, THIS article from Australia's ABC News on a Monash University student off to the United States to participate in the 2016 event. Or THIS in The China Post about the 2015 World Cheerleading Championship of the Taiwan team. Or THIS about the Bowling Green State Falcons' victory at the 2014 ICU World Championship event in Orlando. Or THIS from the Telegraph and Argus in the UK about a participant at the 2016 event, held at Disney World in Orlando. Or THIS from New Zealand about a silver medal won in 2016. And so on and so on and so on. Very clearly a GNG pass by any reasonable standard. Carrite (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is a piece from the Philippines about team wins in the 2015 competition. Modern competitive cheerleading is a first cousin to gymnastics, for what it's worth. Carrite (talk) 10:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrite makes some good points & I've redacted my Delete above. Don't know. On the off chance it stays I've perlified out the GIANT WALL OF SHOUTING. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not doubt the credibility of the sources given, none of them are really significant coverage of the WCC. In the order you've presented them:

[18] - One sentence giving the date of Worlds.
[19] - This would be a good ref for the results table, again it gives barely more than a sentence about the comp itself.
[20] - A little more info about Worlds, but it's mostly quotes and team information.
[21] - A decent article, actually.
[22] - See #1
[23] see #2

My main concern is that there are no reliable sources for the history of the event itself. While the existing page is rather different from the old version, it actually has less information. In other words, at the moment this page is barely more than a "List of champions" page; can we really have such a list when a proper article about Worlds doesn't exist? Primefac (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For reference, here are the 4 citations in the article:

Unscintillating (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to International Cheer Union This seems to be a situation where we have worldwide evidence that the topic satisfies WP:N, but the sources of evidence, such as the article from abc.net.au, are not all that useful in writing an article. We also have the problem that the current article is only sourced with primary sources, so it currently fails WP:V#Notability. And only the first sentence of the current article has inline citations. The redirect should include Template:R with possibilities. Unscintillating (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to International Cheer Union; unsourced WP:LISTCRUFT and insufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:36, 6 October 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. There are some terrible WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep votes here (seriously people, if you're not going to justify your comment vis a vis policy, then don't bother making one) but there are also enough grounded in policy to suggest that the subject does have enough third-party referencing to meet GNG. Black Kite (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinylz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks WP:BIO and WP:ANYBIO; no proof of reliable sources within coverage. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I do believe that there is a little proof of references, but although, it is a very good, clean page that does need more improvement. There is nothing wrong. DBrown SPS (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Agreeing with above. Xboxmanwar (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources such as billboard confirm his releases have charted which means a pass of WP:NMUSIC which does apply to record producers if read carefully in the later paragraph titled Others which refers to notable melodies, which charting releases surely are Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a biography, it lack sufficient sources. Looks like (often unsourced or poorly sourced) coat rack. The Banner talk 19:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the Keep votes themselves are simply stating at what they believe is enough to keep it but they are not stating or otherwise showing how, where and why this article can actually be kept and improved; the listed information and sources certainly are not close to showing we can improve anything even in the slightest; certainly also nothing establishing his own independent notability and substance. SwisterTwister talk 00:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as promotional and of borderline notability at best. The contents of the article shows the promotionalism --it primarily consists of what he says about himself. Lack of notability is not the only reason for deletion. Borderline notability combined with clear promotionalism is an equally good reason. Small variations to the notability standard either way do not fundamentally harm the encycopedia, but accepting articles that are part of a promotional campaign causes great damage. Once we become a vehicle for promotion, we're useless as an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong with this article. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Battan, Carrie (2015-04-23). "Meet Vinylz, Rap's Secret-Biggest Producer: Name a rap star. Kanye West, Drake, Jay Z, Nicki Minaj, Lil Wayne—they've all shown up over Vinylz beats". The Fader. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  For someone who’s practically unknown, Anderson Hernandez, the 25-year-old producer who goes by Vinylz, is everywhere. His résumé is spotless, with major hits built on his cavernous hybrid of ’90s boom-bap and contemporary R&B haze for just about every important rap star: Kanye West, Drake, Jay Z, Lil Wayne, J. Cole, and Nicki Minaj.
  We’re sitting on the second floor of Pergola, an oasis-like Manhattan hookah bar. Pulling on a milky-smooth flavor of hookah, the good-natured Hernandez explains how his records tend to materialize. Occasionally, he’ll be summoned at the last minute. Just days before Drake released his last mixtape, the rapper called him late at night, begging for beats to add to the project. “He was like, ‘Get out the club. Go home and send me something,’” Hernandez recalls, soft-spoken but direct, in a hoodie and chains. “I rushed out the club. But I couldn’t really make anything because I was drunk.” What wound up on the final version of the tape were the beats for “Know Yourself” and “You & The 6.” On the handwritten thank-you note that accompanied the release, Vinylz is listed before Noah “40” Shebib.
  ...
  These days, Hernandez is stationed in Hackensack, New Jersey, where he lives with DJ SpinKing and a club owner named Star. He grew up in uptown Manhattan, where he began rapping at age 14 (he says he was “terrible”), until a friend put him on to Fruity Loops, the same low-budget production software he still uses today. As a teenager, his music caught the ear of Swizz Beatz’ father, who introduced Hernandez to his son. He began working with the rapper Cassidy, who wanted to freestyle over Drake’s breakout “Best I Ever Had.” On a whim, Hernandez decided to try his luck reaching out to the song’s producer, Boi-1da, on Myspace, and got a response. Before long, he was brought into Boi-1da’s world, and eventually became a close collaborator of Drake and his OVO cohort.
2. Nostro, Lauren (2014-05-07). "Interview: Vinylz Details His Production on "Believe Me," "Chi-Raq," and Working on Diddy's Last Album". Complex. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Anderson “Vinylz” Hernandez wanted to be rapper up until the age of 15. Realizing his skills weren't quite up to par, he decided to try his hand behind the boards. A close friend who was producing using the Fruity Loops production software showed him the ins and outs of the program. From there, Vinylz became cooking up his own beats and sharing them with other producers on MySpace.
  One of the producers he was in contact with was Toronto-based and OVO crew member Boi-1da. After a few digital correspondences, the two decided to work together. Boi-1da would invite Vinylz to his crib in Canada for days at a time. Conversely, Vinylz would invite 1da down to Washington Heights. Soon after, the two decided to meet in L.A. to make magic. Vinylz has co-production credit on a bunch of hits, including Drake's "5 AM in Toronto," Jay Z and Rick Ross' "F***WithMeYouKnowIGotIt,” and DJ Khaled's "No New Friends," to name a few.
  These days, he's been in the studio with the whole Young Money camp. He produced Nicki Minaj's "Chiraq" and Lil Wayne and Drake's "Believe Me." He's currently building his own studio in New Jersey, and has recently signed a publishing deal with Sony ATV through Boi-1da. We spoke to Vinylz earlier this week about producing for Wayne and Drake, what Nicki is like in the studio, the "Black Skinhead" remix, and what he's got coming next.
3. Smith, Trevor (2016-02-24). "Behind The Beat: Vinylz". HotNewHipHop. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Anderson Hernandez grew up in Washington Heights, an area in New York City he says no one has ever come from before. After putting in a short time as an emcee, Hernandez fell in live with producing and never looked back. Against the wishes of his parents, he eventually dropped out of school to pursue music full time, and later earned their approval when they started hearing the songs he produced for Drake all over the radio.
  Hernandez adopted the name Vinylz as a tribute to his father's record collection, where he found inspiration for his sample-based beats. As he progressed as a beatmaker, he dropped the sampling technique, but kept the aesthetic, always making an effort to keep the "feel" of the sample alive even when doing original productions -- and in some ways continuing in the tradition of New York rap, while always attempting to set himself apart from current trends.
4. Kyles, Yohance (2013-07-19). "EXCLUSIVE: Vinylz Talks Working With Jay-Z, Drake, Boi-1da and His New Obsession". AllHipHop. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Sometimes it only takes one year for a person’s life to change completely. That is definitely the case for 23-year-old producer Anderson “Vinylz” Hernandez. The Washington Heights, New York native has been making tracks since the age of 15, and around this time just 365 days ago he was still a mostly unknown beatmaker. Then Hip Hop artists, blogs, and fans began to take notice of Vinylz’s production skills when songs by rappers like Roscoe Dash (“Like Diz” featuring 2 Chainz) and Joe Budden (“NBA” featuring Wiz Khalifa and French Montana) starting making the rounds on the net and radio.
  Fast forward just a few months later and now Vinlyz’s name is attached to some of the biggest Hip Hop songs of 2013. Armed with his FL Studios software and electronic keyboard Vinylz teamed with Matthew “Boi-1da” Samuels to create Drake’s “5AM In Toronto,” DJ Khaled’s “No New Friends,” and Jay Z’s “F*ckwithmeyouknowigotit.”
5. Kyles, Yohance (2014-05-13). "Vinylz Discusses Producing For Lil Wayne, Drake Vs Jay Z, & "Chiraq" Diss Tracks". AllHipHop. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
6. Alexis, Nadeska (2014-12-04). "Meet The Producer Behind J.Cole's Controversial Track 'Fire Squad': Vinylz also produced on Nicki Minaj and Fabolous' new albums". MTV. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Producers usually have no idea when an artist will debut the final version of music they've worked on together, but on Tuesday, you heard Vinylz’s beats on big tracks from both J.Cole and Nicki Minaj.
  The 25-year-old New York native produced “Fire Squad” and “A Tale of 2 Citiez” on J.Cole’s upcoming 2014 Forest Hills Drive album, and Nicki’s “All Things Go” from The Pinkprint.
  Cole fans know that he takes pride in producing his own tracks – Born Sinner was almost entirely self-produced – but this time around he made an exception to work closely with Vinylz (who previously co-produced Drake’s “5AM in Toronto” and “0 to 100”). The two were introduced after the North Carolina rapper heard his work during a session with Jeremih.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vinylz to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mostly neutrally written. Any promotional wording is so minor that it can be taken care of through normal editing, not completely deleting the article. Cunard (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis of the claimed sources. The first one starts with "For someone who’s practically unknown, Anderson Hernandez, the 25-year-old producer who goes by Vinylz, is everywhere. His résumé is spotless", what type of honest news source would say this, because (1) it honestly states "not known" is "not yet notable", especially if they have to then mention his "résumé", that by itself is PR uses and PR uses only. That same article goes to talk about his own life from his own POV; the next one then goes to talk about his current activities, something else that, granted, he would supply and source himself, since there's no one else that would know better about his own activities than himself. The next article goes to also talk about his past and early activities, going to say "Hernandez fell in live with producing and never looked back", something that is imaginably not only something self-supplied, but self-imaged also. The last link here goes to sound like a radio interview, stating "Cole fans know that he takes pride in producing his own tracks – Born Sinner was almost entirely self-produced – but this time around he made an exception to work closely with Vinylz", something that, although common in news because of apparent "public interest", is still something someone wanting to glamorous someone's work, would say. The Fader article itself goes to essentially consume the entire thing by having the man speak himself, two paragraphs of it. As always, if the best the news article can submit is either the interview or otherwise self-supplied information, including about the subject thinks of himself or his activities, that's not independent or independently authored news. As I mentioned with my first common earlier, the first Keep votes themselves go to actually state and acknowledge the article has concerns, but are (1) not stating anything else about it specifically or somehow actually considering it; the next Keep vote goes to actually then state "There is nothing wrong with this article", which is entirely what this AfD has been about, therefore there was presumably not any consideration or acknowledge of concerns. Although the 1st AfD was actually different, the basis was still in fact (somewhat surprisingly considering AfD was a different environment at the time) the same concerns that are listed here, which was even noted of self-advertising, something that is also exhibited here. The claims of "the PR-like state" can be improved, not deleted, is not meeting anywhere the exact concerns stated here that the entire article is itself PR, how can something like that be improved? (Especially if the entire history and purposes of this article has apparently been for PR) SwisterTwister talk 02:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: The feature on him from The Fader was published on April 23, 2015, you're basically saying that Vinylz is currently not notable and never will be because one source (The Fader) says that he's "practically unknown", you're also saying that, even through that feature mentions that same statement, assumes that he shouldn't be notable, yet he still had a feature with The Fader and other reliable sources. Please don't make your claim based on ONE SOURCE, there are other sources. The editor who wrote that feature are implying that he isn't known by the fact he doesn't have a lot of recognition in today's "pop culture", compared to other record producers like Metro Boomin, Mike Will Made It and DJ Mustard, but the has extensively worked on a bunch of songs for a bunch of notable artists. Do you see the picture now? Xboxmanwar (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Sigh. I was going to close this, but instead I'm going to indulge in a little rant. The purpose of these AfDs is to determine if an article meets our inclusion requirements, which typically comes down to assessing sources and whether they establish notability. Cunard listed a bunch of sources. What would really be useful to somebody trying to close this debate would be if people would review those sources and comment on whether they're good or not. One person did that, but I'd really like to see additional discussion about those sources. I know it's unusual to relist for a third time, but reading over the material that's here, I don't see much in the existing discussion which gives me any good guidance on how to close this. I've got a few options available to me, none of them very attractive. Relisting seems like the least unattractive so that's what I'm doing.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging DBrown SPS (talk · contribs), Xboxmanwar (talk · contribs), Atlantic306 (talk · contribs), The Banner (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and JustDoItFettyg (talk · contribs). Please comment about whether the sources I provided demonstrate that Vinylz passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I agree with you to keep the article, since you took the time to list the sources which shows Vinylz as notable, and I'm sure the ones who want the article deleted hasn't done their research, just merely claiming the article as "promotional". In addition, the editors on the streaming service Apple Music have created a featured playlist of him displaying his work titled "Behind the Boards: Vinylz", link to it here (needs iTunes or iOS device to access), which helps with notability. In worst case scenario, I am willing to rewrite the entire article if I have to so it can stay on Wikipedia. Xboxmanwar (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, since my comment on 31 August you not edited the article, so my comments still stand. The Banner talk 18:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I said that I will rewrite the article, for the worst case scenario. Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the other way round: rewrite the article and perhaps that makes me change my vote. We need action, not promises. The Banner talk 08:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: I'll see what I can do. Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources provide by Cunard are significant coverage in reliable sources such as Fader and MTV which are established longstanding rs, Swister Twister is being far too demanding to expect magazine and web articles to be written in the neutral tone of an encyclopedia. Also, regarding personal information about the subject or any subject the reality is that for the press and magazines the information originates from primary sources- what is important is that the information is double- checked and sources such as Fader have a reputation for fact checking so that concern is misplaced. Haven't examined all the sources yet but there seems to be more than enough for WP:GNG to be passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"SwisterTwister is being far too demanding to expect magazine and web articles to be written in the neutral tone of an encyclopedia" - As mentioned, if we at all compromise and start accepting any questionable information (we cannot alone expect and confide with news media to not themselves accept PR, for the sake of either interested clients or PR), but it shows how damaging it can be to Wikipedia if we still accept such questionable contents; suggesting we somehow actually accept "non-NPOV tone and information" completely damns Wikipedia and what it is. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SwisterTwister: I'm agreeing with Atlantic306's views on you, and for your claims, it doesn't damage anything at all, and theres nothing to question about, your simply exaggerating how the editor that wrote his feature on The Fader described Vinylz solely at the beginning, and thats one source implying that small statement, no other featured articles on him describes him like that, I suggest that you should just accept the article and thats it. Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: It is hard to find a source, but I do know this one: [24]. Maybe, it is recently, but it may help. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DBrown SPS: It's not hard to find a source, Cunard already listed a whole bunch of them. Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The primary problem is promotionalism, and from promotionalism throughout the article, it doesn't really mater much about the sources. (But it is also true that all Cunard's sources are basically what the subject is saying about himself; not surprisingly, that tends to go along with a promotional article here.) DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists to promote the subject. Sources offered above, while numerous, are unconvincing they relay closely on the subject's commentary, and I would not consider them sufficient RS to establish notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if promotionalism is the major concern the article can be copyedited to address that as he is clearly notable by coverage in established reliable sources such as Fader, MTV and genre- specific rs. As he is the subject of rs coverage he qualifies for a wikipedia article as he also passes WP:MUSIC for producing hit compositions. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upon consideration, the subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources, such as some presented above. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article, some of which has already occurred after the article was nominated for deletion (diff, diff), rather than deleting it in entirety. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sorry but every single source involves the subject talking about themself which essentially makes the sources primary/not independent. This is in addition to the fact that some of the sources like AllHipHop and HotNewHipHop are never supposed to be used per WP:SPIP. Our essential criteria is that "secondary sources independent of the subject" are required so that we can write an NPOV article. The quality of the sources clearly doesn't allow that to happen. There is no way I can independently verify the achievements either. Add to that the promotional part and this is a very clear delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have a small rant here,

To @Lemongirl942: What you're referring to is called an "interview", you know, where you talk about your life and your work, and obviously I'm being sarcastic. Sorry about this, but I need to call you out, but "There is no way I can independently verify the achievements either" is complete bullshit, its so god damn easy to verify his achievements, have you checked BMI, RIAA, ASCAP, Liner notes, other reliable sources, nope. I'll give you a start, Forbes mentions one of Vinylz's work here. I know it isn't much, but that definitely shows that it can be verified, just as shown with the Forbes article, I'm pretty sure that a Forbes article is reliable. Sites like HotNewHipHop and AllHipHop are not paid publicity or sponsored, they are simply interviewing the guy about him and what he does, which is called an "interview", I'm being sarcastic again.

To all of the people that oppose the article being deleted, you people are insane on sources, speculating "Oh, it could be promotional", or "Oh, it could be sponsored", and a ton or more excuses, yet none of you take the time to do research about the guy himself, and again just assuming that it's bad. You guys need to calm down on the sources, and I suggest to just accept the article.

It should also be noted that nominator of this AfD, 206.125.47.10, appears to abuse the AfD flagging system through some attempts they did to mark (and remove one) article(s) they don't like, due to the discriminating things they said in their edit summaries of some of the articles they have marked for deletion, as shown here and here, as well as putting a false blocked statement on DBrown SPS's talk page here, even through DBrown SPS has never been blocked, as shown here, maybe an administrator could do some action against this editor? @EdJohnston: Maybe you could look into it please, thanks. Xboxmanwar (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You need to understand what are reliable secondary sources. Let's quote you where you said: "I'm pretty sure that a Forbes article is reliable." Now lets look at the link. http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/09/16/drake-leads-the-bet-hip-hop-award-nominations/#57381c76ee72. Notice the URL? This is "Forbes/sites" NOT "Forbes", and it is not a reliable source. It is not under any editorial control of Forbes. For all purposes, this is can be considered WP:USERGENERATED. This has been previously discussed at RSN and this Poynter article pretty well explains their model: There is no fact checking.

Now coming back to interviews, yes they are primary sources and we require at the very least, one good secondary source specifically for WP:WHYN. That's missing here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Cunards sources are reliable sources, and the bylined articles under editorial review are focused about the subject and represent significant coverage. I reject any and all arguments claiming that secondary sources have to be neutral, or otherwise follow Wikipedia policies as if they were Wikipedia. We cite reliable secondary sources because they have their OWN policies. Also, interviews are valid secondary sources, as long as they are not SELF-PUBLISHED. Because the interview was conducted by a secondary party, subject to secondary party editorial review, edited and selectively published by a secondary source.... it is a valid establishment of notability. Fieari (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to list my analysis of the "reject any and all arguments claiming that secondary sources have to be neutral" comment above, in that it is not anywhere close to what Wikipedia actually is, if we allowed, for example, republished PR simply because it was republished by a major news source, that would be a quite thin excuse of a source. There has been established consensus above that the sources are themselves PR because it's all simply interviewed information (simply restating them as 'significant' means nothing if they have been listed as unconvincing as it is), nothing else; the claim that interviews are acceptable if not self-republished is not exact, because interviews anywhere, say, a local news article about a starting businessperson or company, that is going to be self-supplied in the sense of being primary information and sourcing (news media is not going to have "review" of what the subject says himself if the contents are in fact a majority of information supplied by him). If we actually say "but it's enough", that's not acknowledging or considering the concerns here. SwisterTwister talk 07:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sourcing by Cunard isn't the best, but repeated coverage in sites with editorial control would indicate that they meet WP:BASIC, even if just barely. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:47, 10 October 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion S9110[edit]

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

Article is not notable Daylen (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Page's current references are poor and not much else out there confirming notability. Meatsgains (talk) 21:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 24 September 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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natok Holona[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Only sources are to links to watch or download film. Can't find anything else. Majora (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no sign of notability at all KylieTastic (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 17:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 25 September 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. MER-C 04:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Hooda[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. SST flyer 16:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 16:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 16:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is poorly sourced and would need significant work to merit inclusion. FortunaMajor (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks any sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even a single passing mention in any reliable sources. A criminal who shares the name has some. Anup [Talk] 18:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Parent article deleted by AfD, no credible indication of notability Acroterion (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Local version of pageant previously deemed to be non-notable. SST flyer 16:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 16:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Mother article was deleted[25] as have similar articles to this for not being notable. This should be speedy deleted. It was tagged for CSD for AFD nominator took it down. Trout slap time?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2016 pageant is considered to be the most glamorous beauty pageant ever held in Sri Lanka which was organized by the Rotary Club of Colombo West. is a credible claim of significance, so A7 does not apply. SSTflyer 16:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Who is Rotary Club of Colombo West. Are they notable? Does their statement have any credibility. They lack a Wikipedia article and would be likely be deemed not notable if one was made. Secondly, they helped organize this pageant 'Rotary Cub of Colombo West Organizes "Miss Intercontinental Sri Lanka" as its first Fund Raising Project' per their facebook page. So their claim is not self serving and not credible. A google search would have told you all of this. The article doesn't make the claim but the article's headline. Article headlines aren't a RS. They are usually written by someone other than the article's author and with the purpose of drawing readers to the article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- - Further comment Did you ever consider that the article creator has a COI. According to this[26]] they are the official photographer for the event....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the article is clearly not notable and the main article "Miss Intercontinental" was deleted many times.--Richie Campbell (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment sri lanka is an island nation that was ravages by a 30 year war, now with the dawn of peace for the first time in the countrys history an international beauty pageant will be held with 70 participants from all over the world.this was made possible because of the success of the local pageant and it is of immense significance to the country as it is considered the grandest ever held, the article is backed by references from news sources and are not fabrications or a method to promote anyone or any organization. it is a significant milestone in the history of sri lanka and hence should be treated as such, deletion of this article is unfair to say the least, the reference to Rotary can be deleted although it is the largest charity organization in sri lanka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivia emirates (talk • contribs) 14:19, 25 September 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 Taiwan after World War II. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China (1949–71)[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork. Seems to be largely copied and pasted from Taiwan after World War II and Taiwan, breaking references and categories along the way, without proper attribution or any rationale given. Taiwan after World War II in particular is far from too long and does not need breaking up this way. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Rather than deleting, in a civil manner, this should redirect to Taiwan article instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.176.163 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rearrange Currently there are several ways of content overlapping/forking on the subject: Taiwan after World War II, History of Taiwan#Republic of China rule, History of the Republic of China, Republic of China (1912–49), of ones I see. The whole subject must be cleanly split according to chronology and Wikipedia:Summary style. 1949 ans 1971 are clearly the major watershed dates in the history of ROC, hence the article makes sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. @JohnBlackburne: The problem is not the length of article TaWWII, but the same content maintained in several articles, with the danger of diverging. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t see how 1971 is a major watershed date. It’s the date Taiwan left the UN but nothing fundamentally changed at the time, no more than it changed for China or any other country when they joined the UN. The event merits only a paragraph in the middle of a section in Taiwan after World War II, and that article is not split into “before 1971” and “after 1971“, as you would expect if it were a clear demarkation of the history of Taiwan.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork of Taiwan after World War II. I agree that History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China should be written in summary style, but the necessary sub-article already exists, namely Taiwan after World War II. 1949 is obviously a watershed date, but so is 1945, and even if the article started at 1949 it would need an introductory section on the re-occupation of the island in 1945–49. On the other hand, UN derecognition in 1971 was a major event in foreign affairs, but not a watershed in the running of the place. The range 1949–71 does not have the clear-cut status of 1912–49. So Taiwan after World War II is appropriate as the sub-article. If it gets too big, people can decide on appropriate sub-articles. Kanguole 02:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as User:Staszek Lem said, this article I created shows the period of the ROC which was the founding member of the UN from their exile on the mainland in 1949 to when Communist China became recognized by the UN in 1971 when Nationalist China lost its seat and membership in the UN, the UNSC and its organs. This article needs to be heavily rewritten. During that period, Taiwan is just the name of the island, but the name of the state, the "Republic of China" or "Nationalist China" was used in contrast to the "People's Republic of China" or "Communist China" in the Mainland. Look at the articles in Sudan like the History of Sudan (1956–69) and the History of Sudan (1969–85) for example. In short, this article makes sense and will remain. Wrestlingring (talk) 03:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the Taiwan after World War II article already exist.--Thomasettaei (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think we should merge this with Taiwan after World War II, or at least redirect to it. This is because of the overlap. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is a clear fork of Taiwan after World War II. This is actually the more encyclopedic title, to my mind. Carrite (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: Second objection. If that's the case, some parts from the article incl. infobox could be merged with Taiwan after World War II. Secondly, this article should remain as a stand-alone like the articles of History of Sudan (1956–69) and the History of Sudan (1969–85) which contained country infoboxes if the Wikipedia:Summary style understands it. Wrestlingring (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Wrestlingring (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
Delete as a content fork, echoing others. Renaming the extant article with the date-range style may be warranted, but is a matter of editorial discretion (and probably needs an RFC), rather than a topic for AFD. In any case, comparisons to the Sudan timeline articles are not convincing; those have a bright-line division in 1969 when the Free Officers Movement executed a coup. During the 1956–69 period, the country operated as the Republic of Sudan, while from 1969–85, it was the Democratic Republic of Sudan. No such clear division occurred with regard to the Republic of China/Taiwan in 1971. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked, there are four articles that covered the History of South Korea which is partitioned into the first, second, third and fourth republics. So deleting this article will risk on partition the articles of Chinese history altogether. Wrestlingring (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, the big problem I have with this article is that nothing changed about the government of Taiwan in 1971. South Korea has a large number of historical government articles (in addition to the ones you listed, there is a fifth republic, plus the current South Korea article (for what is technically also the sixth republic). But that's because it has had fundamental government changes, toggling between civilian, military, and "civilian" (but really military) rule over the years, with various different constitutions in place. None of that happened in Taiwan in 1971. The expulsion of the ROC representatives from the United Nations is an important event in the country's history, but it does not mark the end of one government (or historical period) and the start of a new one. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a content fork. Phlar (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I voted to keep the article already, can we merge the forked article instead? Wrestlingring (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also think a merger is better. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is there to merge? All of it seems to be copied from the Taiwan after World War II, History of Taiwan and Taiwan articles, often with no changes at all. Kanguole 00:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well it appears as if no text copied tags have been placed on the talk pages of the pages you mentioned, nor on this one. I think this should be merged if the editors of this article haven't edited those articles, in order to fulfil attribution requirements. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        No such tags were placed as the copy and paste was done incorrectly, with no attribution in the edit summaries or anywhere in the affected articles and their talk pages. No significant new content has been added except a table, but that is largely unsourced and even if it were sourced the information in it is largely trivia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:53, 7 October 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. This would actually qualify for speedy WP:CSD#A9. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wedding (EP)[edit]

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

Non-notable EP by non-notable band. SST flyer 15:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 15:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 15:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands - one review, even in Billboard, isn't enough - David Gerard (talk) 16:38, 24 September 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. MER-C 04:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Software[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 14:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability, GNews hits for "albany software" are for software companies based in Albany, company has been bought - David Gerard (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is actually A7 material if not for the blatantly thin and PR claims of "a known company client", none of this comes close at all for being actually substantially convincing and then non-PR. This is essentially nothing but a business listing, and that's not what is acceptable here. SwisterTwister talk 22:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of WP:CORP notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; nothing but a corporate blurb. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptavist[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Promotional tone written like company fact-sheet. Light2021 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the only third-party coverage is the Daily Mail, and that doesn't mention the company's name. I see a few press releases in GNews. Some things that look like Google or GNews hits are actually a blog theme called "Adaptavist", not related to this company - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE CLOSE as the article has apparently been deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 27 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

121 Systems[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable third-party sources to establish WP:CORP notability, just press releases and similar links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as this has been deleted 2 times before, all within the last year, and this is exactly advertising, in that it goes to mention the company's services and partners, this is only mentioned when there's PR intent and that alone. SwisterTwister talk 19:51, 26 September 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. MER-C 04:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4i2i Communications[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this. Light2021 (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of press releases and churnalism, there was a bit of local coverage of their NASA deal but that's about it - David Gerard (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as this is advertising from listing the company's services and business information to then actually listing its client information; none of this would come close at all, and Wikipedia itself has changed substantially since 2007, so what would have been sources and information then are by far not the same thing now, especially when it's as blatant as this. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than a few press releases, just a few mentions in local Aberdeen news; nothing to satisfy WP:CORP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could only find three very passing mentions in newspapers even when it was in its "heyday" so I don't believe it meets any relevant notability guides; I think it may now be defunct as are many of the micro companies established in Aberdeen and the Shire during that time period. I also tried searches using the CEOs name and still couldn't come up with anything substantial. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's hardly any indepth references to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 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 under G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vinformax[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands. Light2021 (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - apart from the blatantly promotional tone, all the coverage appears to be press release reprints and lightly-veiled churnalism. Is there any WP:CORPDEPTH here, or genuine unlinked third-party coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 17:24, 24 September 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. MER-C 04:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Narayan[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. The article's notability seems to be based on Libero Sports which, in itself, might not meet our notability criteria. Spiderone 14:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this AfD was created on behalf of Indianfootball4eva Spiderone 14:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication the subject played in a fully-professional league or in a Tier-1 match to meet WP:NFOOTY. Insufficient significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: appears to be failing both, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 18:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. C 679 13:08, 1 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1968 Olympic and Paralympic medal table[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

Pinging {{U|Ravendrop} and Metropolitan90 in case they want to change their !votes.- Mr X 22:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced, and apparently unsourceable intersection between medals won in the 1968 Summer Paralympics and 1968 Summer Olympics. Duplicates existing content without adding any meaningful context. - Mr X 13:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both Have never seen this kind of intersection in WP:RS. These are two different and distinct events, especially in 1968 when there wasn't a formal (or informal for that matter) relationship between the two groups. Ravendrop 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's original research to suggest that one can combine the medal tables of the two events into one and get a meaningful result. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the addition of the combined 1960 medal table to the nomination, please count this as a "delete all" recommendation for that and any similar medal tables that may exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is only in recent times that the Paralympics have received significant coverage. Before the last few, they are probably best regarded as a much less notable contest than the Olympics. I too regard this as WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Paralympic medal tables are notable, as are Olympic medal tables, but no reason to combine them. It's WP:OR. Smartyllama (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Combining legitimate, but unrelated, material and using it to draw conclusions in this way is the very definition of novel synthesis. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pinging @Ravendrop: who was incorrectly pinged above due to a missing bracket. Smartyllama (talk) 20:55, 30 September 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 The Children of Huang Shi. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Li Guangyu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no participants in last AfD. Fails WP:NACTOR for lack of major roles LibStar (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I had a look through his filmography and although he has worked in real, notable, films they are all (both?) minor roles, far too little for notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Children of Huang Shi. His role there was significant enough to get noted in multiple reviews. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:29, 2 October 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 regions in Faerûn. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 11:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raurin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of regions in Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of regions in Faerûn. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 28 September 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 regions in Faerûn. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 11:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chondalwood[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of regions in Faerûn. BOZ (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ.Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:16, 29 September 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. MER-C 04:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshang Pearl[edit]

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

This is a non-notable housing development which has not been completed yet. The only RS I found containing significant coverage was this article which mentioned that the project was approved. Other than this there's a trivial mention here but I don't see anything else after that. Housing developments are not inherently notable (See WP:GEOFEAT) unless there is significant coverage. I'm also concerned that this article may be used for promotion given the elaborate Template:Bahria Town Group attached to it. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom; non-notable building projection, which is not even finished at this time. Promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; the article exists to promote the business, and provides no indictions of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing all three elements of my standards. No reliable sources prove it exists or has been completed. There are unlikely to be many reliable sources in English. There are no people living there yet, and neither census records nor an estimated occupancy are yet available. Even when it will be completed, it is just another run of the mill development. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means as not only is this not actually established yet, but it's merely then advertising what it to be planned, which is still advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:34, 30 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gunrox[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the fact alone no one has cared to improve it, yet being about a common subject like this, suggests it's that uncared about, and my own searches are then not finding anything at all, which is also not surprising considering there's hardly anything, the game itself seems to have been a cheap independent game as it is, so that's not surprising. This essentially actually is G11 material in that it's so overfocused with what it is about, instead of actual acceptable materials. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sf9 (band)[edit]

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

See WP:UPANDCOMING, WP:TOOSOON, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bands that haven't started yet are seldom notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no current assertion of notability seeing as the band has not started yet and none of its members are already notable. There is absolutely nothing to write a Wikipedia article about this band other than that its a new band. Anyone can start a new band, but it takes sources showing which work the band is notable for, coverage involving its history and its members and coverage involving its tours, etc. That remains to be seen and until then, WP:TOOSOON applies. —Mythdon 09:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:29, 30 September 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. Hut 8.5 20:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The F Word (Australian TV series)[edit]

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

Not notable television program with lack of references -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three episodes? No substantial coverage in WP:RS? Buried on a secondary digital channel? Yeah. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input would be desirable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searching for info just brings back bog-standard TV listings. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V as no significant RS coverage can be found; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 27 September 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. MER-C 03:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saki Furuwa[edit]

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

Child actress that is not currently sufficiently notable. Pichpich (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Her profile on Kotobank looks promising [27], but searches in Japanese come up with no significant independent RS. I also can't find any record of what the TV show Meon--supposedly her most famous role--is. Michitaro (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON and not notable. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete acting credits do not yet rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete

Subject is far from being notable enough. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NonProfits' United[edit]

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

Company web page, not encyclopedia article. I doubt the notability, but if there is any, it would still need to be completely rewritten. DGG ( talk ) 20:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - beyond what's in the article I found only this trivial mention: [Local bus company receives safety award] Lacks the coverage to meet GNG or WP:ORG. Gab4gab (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could find no WP:SIGCOV of the company. Safehaven86 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 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. MER-C 04:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Line[edit]

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

Non-notable bus operator, with no other articles linking in. 2jags (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article being an orphan isn't really a concern however the notability is - There's no evidence of notability whatsoever, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- strictly a vanity / tribute page for a company that "operated eight vehicles". Such an article would only be of interest (maybe) to the local community, not to the world at large. A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy per K.e.coffman Nordic Nightfury 07:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur non-notable. MB 03:40, 1 October 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. MER-C 04:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanishq Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. Ueutyi (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only sources mentioned in the references are self-created or social media references without any weight age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.70.114.122 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources either. Yintan 07:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oman-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally created the first AFD, then immediately withdrew it when I realized that, in this case, WP:BLPROD (The BLP article doesn't cite any sources.) may be a better choice. Seems the article's author won't let the tag stay put, though, so here we are. I've also reported the username as promotional and implying use by more than one person. -- Gestrid (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unreferenced BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:58, 1 October 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. Realized BLPPROD should be used instead. Apologies. (non-admin closure) -- Gestrid (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tanishq Sharma[edit]

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

Article was obviously created for promotional purposes (WP:NOTPROMO). The username of the creator implies that. It also does not provide any references at all. -- Gestrid (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. Sam Walton (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Headless (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Support band being written about by one of its members. One ex-member probably qualifies as notable but everything I have seen only lists him as a guest rather than a full member. A current member has an article but does not seem particular notable. noq (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goran Edman is a permanent member of the band. Please see the official website www.headlessofficial.com or ask himself (you can write an email from his official website www.goranedman.com). Mr Goran Edman is not just notable, he's part of rock history having recorded the two most significant album by Yngwie Malmsteen: Eclipse (Yngwie Malmsteen album) and Fire & Ice (Yngwie Malmsteen album)! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercianciusi (talk • contribs) 16:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not convinced any criterion of WP:NMUSIC is satisfied here. There isn't much coverage around (I found this but it looks suspiciously like it's based on a press release) and the two members with articles look shaky with respect to being notable as individuals (rather than for the acts they've played in/with). I think if it's going to be kept someone will need to come up with some decent coverage of the band itself or their releases. --Michig (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:53, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. New references found on the web

https://www.discogs.com/it/artist/3649949-Headless-6 https://www.discogs.com/it/artist/438731-Jim-Matheos?sort=year%2Cdesc&limit=25&filter_anv=0&subtype=Instruments-Performance&type=Credits http://www.allmusic.com/artist/headless-mn0003492318 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waltercianciusi (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These 'new references' comprise discogs.com listings (not a reliable source, and these entries don't contribute to establishing notability), and an Allmusic entry with no coverage whatsoever. --Michig (talk) 08:01, 25 September 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United Memorial Medical Center[edit]

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

The only reference is the hospital's own. This draft does not identify notability as compared to other hospitals. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to Rochester Regional Health; this center fails GNG on its own; seems to have been created as part of a campaign to promote various medical centers within the Rochester Regional Health group. Jytdog (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 24 September 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. Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rocco Bellagio[edit]

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

Delete - Rocco Bellagio doesn't need a wiki page he only wrestles for OVW. Browndog91 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 04:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 19:57, 5 October 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Replicants[edit]

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

Not notable or referenced Rathfelder (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 24 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Rod[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence, but there is some coverage of him available, such as this, this and this and some lesser coverage here[ and [http://www.lematin.ch/sports/hockey/Noah-Rod-L-equipe-de-Suisse-un-reve-de-gosse/story/11330184 here. There were also several articles about a suspension he served. May not be enough, but warrants a more substantive discussion than simply "non-notable hockey player." Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: He was notable enough to be picked to play on the swiss men's national team, however not at the world's yet. I don't know whether it is better to wait until he plays for the senior team at a world championship or if he is notable enough now.18abruce (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be enough coverage to warrant a GNG pass. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 14:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theres enough here for GNG, plus he played on a national team. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:55, 4 October 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. MER-C 04:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Francois (artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The1337gamer (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Mduvekot (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete A thorough search did not result in any reliable sources or proof of notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete possible self promotional. No third party coverage provided me LibStar (talk) 23:30, 27 September 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 page can't stay, no consensus on a redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Host Virtual[edit]

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

References are close association with company or written like PR exercise. it does not have substance for Wikipedia notability criteria. It should be deleted. Light21 19:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

delete text is a bit brochure-like, little evidence of notability as a hosting company - David Gerard (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Virtual Private Cloud I didn't find much in Google searches. The first and fifth references in the article are press releases. The second reference counts toward GNG, but since it appears to be a rewritten press release has little depth. The KWQC reference was a dead link. I also checked and this company is not listed with investing.businessweek.com, which is generally a good indicator of notability. Unscintillating (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; company's product brochure in the form of a wikipedia article. I don't see a reason to redirect to Virtual private cloud since this is a technology article; I don't think it would be intuitive to redirect a company name to it. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of significance and far from satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. A redirect btw is not appropriate here as we don't redirect companies to a generic article about a service. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move page to previous policy compliant version. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social class in the Muslim world[edit]

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

Appears to be a low quality POV piece, containing WP:SYN synthesis. This topic and its subtopics have much higher quality coverage in at least two other articles: Islam and Muslim world. Fails GNG and contravenes NPOV and probably WP:V due to synthesis. In my opinion, the material here is not worth salvaging due to much higher quality coverage in other articles. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator It appears to me, because the nominated article has attracted WP:SYN, a move to the previous version that complies with Wikipedia's content policies and notability guidelines will satisfy all current AfD participants. Therefore, a formal move request is in place (here) to restore the article space to the previously compliant version. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to nominate this for WP:G5 speedy deletion, when I found out that this page is actually the result of a cut-and-paste move from Social class among Muslims. In any case, delete per one big heap of WP:SYNTHESIS. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not qualify for speedy deletion, as it is really a mess of a cut and paste move and not actually created in violation of a ban. I think I have managed to properly restore everything to Social class among Muslims. NW (Talk) 02:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: OK thanks for doing all this. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So wait a minute...which article is this deletion discussion in reference to, then? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, this has been moved and cleaned up, and there isn't really a need for this discussion any longer...Vanamonde (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created as a spin-off from Caste_system_in_India#Muslims, but right from the start it was misguidedly given the current title, which made it a magnet for synthesis. There are RSs, including those cited in the article, devoted to the topic of caste system among South Asian Muslims. We can have an article on that. The current article is obviously not even close to a general discussion of Social class among Muslims. It just tags on some vaguely caste-like examples under that broad category, violating WP:SYN and confusing caste with slavery, and other phenomena in the process. It should be trimmed down to the scope supported by the RSs and renamed to Caste system among South Asian Muslims. Eperoton (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep User:Utcursch is not blocked as of 15:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC). However, the page is likely to contain original research. 86.22.8.235 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DEL#CONTENT. This article was originally about caste system among South Asian Muslims (which even Encyclopædia Britannica has an article on). The scope and content of the article was changed to cover the entire world relatively recently, and the page was moved accordingly by Metaphysicswar (who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet). The original topic has multiple books dedicated to it (e.g. [28][29][30][31][32][33]), and also finds a mention in hundreds of other books (e.g. [34][35][36][37]). Not to mention journal/magazine articles (e.g. [38][39][40]), government reports (e.g. [41][42]), and news articles (e.g. [43][44][45][46][47][48]). I suggest moving the article back to its original title, and reducing its scope to the Indian subcontinent as before. utcursch | talk 17:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch: you have presented some excellent sources. Yet, most all of these pertain to Muslim society in India. That is more focused and is different from the topic of this article. I did notice one book "Sayyids and Sharifs in Muslim Societies" who are "lineal descendants and relatives of the Prophet Muhammad". And these have honored positions that I am sure are acknowledged throughout the world. But this is very different from this article. This article is not even close to such a renown subject - which deserves quality coverage. This article is very much amateur hour and should not be representative of what Wikipedia offers on Muslim societies throughout the world. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: The current version does look like bad synthesis. But it is completely different from the original article. Here's a version from 2007. It was located at Caste system among South Asian Muslims. This version, IMHO, is salvageable. I'm proposing that the article be moved back to something close this version, at its original location. utcursch | talk 01:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Utcursch: I see what you mean. This is a much better article. Below @Eperoton: is recommending a move proposal be initiated on the article talk page, so the article's history and the needed sourced content can be saved. So perhaps a proposed move to this version is in order. And I need to somehow drop this AfD, but since there are two other delete Ivotes I'm not sure how to do this. I think the main issue is changing the current state of the article back to the well sourced version, then everyone will be satisfied. I am thinking the move can be an informal thread, unless someone thinks a formal move request with a template is needed. Well, waiting to hear back Steve Quinn (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm really concerned about the novel synthesis aspects here. Whatever social structures are in place in Algeria are certainly unrelated to those among Muslim communities in India. I don't see anything in the references that suggests that the over-arching concept here "social class in the Muslim world" is a recognized topic. Rather, this is an assembly of bits about several different concepts. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise on this point, but if the sources exist to pull that off, I'd really like to see this sort of thing assembled in Draft or userspace before dumped in main; this isn't it. Separate articles on the interaction between Islam and existing social strata in various regional contexts are probably better-supported by the sources anyway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. I've seen a lot worse, and the synthesis can parts can be fixed. I think normal editing processes can fix the serious issues that have been raised. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of the main points I was trying to emphasize (as the nominator) is this material has much better coverage in the other Muslim and Islam related articles. The original creator of this article does not seem to have an in depth understanding of this topic - based on what is written. This person seems to have basically cobbled together what he or she thinks this topic is according to their point of view - as in synthesis. I don't think there is a modern recognized social class system in the Muslim world - spanning the globe - and there is agreement by most or all of the various Muslim communities throughout the world as to what this is. I think it is better to allow coverage in the other Muslim and Islam articles where editors know about nuances related to this. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if someone is willing to create an article such as "Caste system among South Asian Muslims" which was the original intention, then I say please go ahead and do so, based on the article refs and whatever relevant sources have been presented here. But I think it is best to delete this article (imho), rather than waiting for someone to correct all the synthesis - which has been pointed out above as the inadvertent mixing of topics under this title. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: If the article was deleted, its history, including the sourced content on the caste system among South Asian Muslims would be lost. What we need to do is propose a move of the article to Caste system among South Asian Muslims on its talk page, then vote for the move, and once it's moved, delete the extraneous content. Eperoton (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on the discussion at this AfD, I have opened a move proposal on the article talk page here [49]. --Steve Quinn (talk) 03:16, 30 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal White[edit]

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

An advertorially toned and uncited BLP on an unremarkable actor. Per recent AfDs, UK Adult Film and Television Awards does not meet PORNBIO, and the other award listed is fan based. Significant RS coverage cannot be found. WP:PROMO also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG/ –Davey2010^Talk 21:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to UK Adult Film and Television Awards as {{R to list entry}}. SST flyer 11:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely devoid of reliably sourced biographical content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:21, 1 October 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 flyer 10:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Scott[edit]

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

Fails GNG or WP:MUSBIO. Article has had an unresolved "additional citations" tag for more than two years. A very thorough search for sources finds the subject only referenced in credit lists (at AllMusic, IMDB, etc.) but no more substantive treatment, with the exception of a single book "Bruce Springsteen: Two Hearts, the Story" in which he is mentioned in passing exactly four times in 322 pages. DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being the longtime Springsteen recording engineer is in itself notable, and some might say legendary. Running the boards on Born in the U.S.A., The Rising and The River is about as A-list as it gets in the recording business. There is good detail on Scott in sources like Montana Public Radio and Sound on Sound and the book Bruce Springsteen and the Promise of Rock 'n' Roll goes into a lot of detail on him too (online source not available).[50][51]. --Oakshade (talk) 03:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oakshade. The people on the other side of the microphone often don't get their due and it is tougher to find sources, but this one seems to pass GNG pretty easily. Montanabw^(talk) 21:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the book Bruce by Peter Ames Carlin calls him Springsteen's "chief engineer" and mentions him two dozen times: link. He appears to be an important figure in Springsteen's career and probably in his own right. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:59, 24 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George Ullman[edit]

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable talent agent, with only one major client. Quis separabit? 01:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable talent agent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only known as the manager of Rudolph Valentino, and the subject is already discussed there. Not independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 2 October 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. I encourage discussion on the article talk page about renaming the article as discussed by some participants, to see if that addresses some of the concerns. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Alaska Anchorage Seawolves men's basketball team[edit]

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

This article is problematic on multiple levels. To start, there is no main article on the basketball team. There's no reason to put the cart before the horse other than to further push the encyclopedia in the direction of forever being a constant series of curious snapshots in time reflecting fleeting current events occuring within the encyclopedia's lifetime, already a major problem with this site. The article is a horribly incomplete data dump with little usable prose; the original revision contained multiple references to the Drexel Dragons, also revealing a pattern of cut-and-paste copycat content creation with little regard for article quality. The last game listed took place on November 28, 2015, whereas this story shows that they finished their season on March 3, 2016, losing a quarterfinal in the conference tournament. If we're really here to reflect what's notable rather than dump meaningless fanboy content, then the season article which needed to be created was on UAA's women's team. It took a little bit of effort to find the above story, as search results were dominated by stories of the women making the Division II national finals during this same season. Of course, the weight given in the article to game scores and other minor details at the expense of usable prose is a blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but that information shows a number of non-tournament games with an attendance of all of a hundred people or so. What's terribly notable about that? As an aside, UAF's normal venue for basketball is not the Carlson Center, so there's factual accuracy issues suggesting that what's presented in the article may require further verification. As the summer of 2016 within the UA system has been dominated by discussion of consolidating or eliminating athletic programs for budgetary reasons, it would stand to reason that the university would be guilty of gross impropriety were they to be regularly renting the 5–6,000-seat Carlson Center for games which draw 75 or 100 people. On top of all that, what really motivated this AFD was the recent creation of THREE categories (Category:Alaska Anchorage Seawolves basketball, subcategory Category:Alaska Anchorage Seawolves men's basketball and subcategory Category:Alaska Anchorage Seawolves men's basketball seasons) solely to support this one subpar article. Don't we have an admonition somewhere within the project namespace to "avoid puffery"? My previous statement about putting the cart before the horse applies here, too. With only the one article, all these categories hinder rather than help category navigation, again a major problem in general. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and refocus: There's limited enough RS coverage to establish WP:ORGDEPTH for the team, however there's elements of the article which would form a foundation for a team article if cut down. I have linked the site, which contains all the up-to-date statistics that anyone who's interested could want. "Carlson Center" should have been "Patty Center" per this. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with refactoring. I left a notice about this AFD on the creator's talk page. In the course of doing so, I perused their contributions, which offers evidence of a certain pattern of being too busy creating content of this sort to properly curate any of it (another problem hardly limited to any one article or contributor). The fact that no one else has stepped up to the plate could be considered another indication of non-notability. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A failure to maintain may or may not indicate a problem with notability. However, maintainability is a factor in software standardization, so why does it not have a stated role at Wikipedia? Unscintillating (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles about a team's season do not create a requirement to have an article about the team itself, because volunteers aren't required to develop the encyclopedia in a reasonable sequence. Unscintillating (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article was marked in February 2016 as lacking sources. It is not acceptable that an article have no sources cited for any length of time, not to mention a future event, as it is easy to move articles to draftspace. There is no adequate WP:DEL-REASON for "no sources...fails WP:V", because WP:DEL7 is stated using notability logic that sources that are not cited are considered...so I must add WP:IAR to my !vote here. WP:V is a core content policy that requires verifiability in the article itself. Unscintillating (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not a future event. It already happened. The season is over. It ended in March of this year. Smartyllama (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination states, "The last game listed took place on November 28, 2015, whereas this story shows that they finished their season on March 3, 2016, losing a quarterfinal in the conference tournament." I think most people would consider an article written in 2015, about a season ending in 2016, to be an article written about events that have yet to take place. Contrary to your premise that an article is ok if the topic of the article has shifted to being in the past, I think the fact that time has changed is actually (unnecessary) proof that there was no need to write this article before the season had ended. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are frequently written about seasons before they end, when the seasons are notable. In fact, that's pretty much standard practice here. We've had numerous previous AfD's to establish that this is acceptable. The only question, therefore, is whether this season is in fact notable. Smartyllama (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First you talk about WP:OSE, and then you claim that there are AfDs that have been decided on notability, which is a guideline; and imply that those AfDs ignored WP:NOT, which is a policy. If you look at what a policy says, it reads something like, "This is a widely accepted standard which all editors should normally follow." Your argument implies that it has become "acceptable" to ignore policy at AfDs, so you propose to do it here also. Yet this is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, which administrators have a responsibility to reject. Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can show you about seven AfDs saying it's acceptable to create articles on seasons before they end if they're notable. I can show you about 500 season articles that are not yet over but which exist. If it were one or two, WP:OSE wouldn't be a valid argument, but when it's literally hundreds, I think it flies. And in any event, the season is over now so everything you say is irrelevant, we just need to add that information to the article. See here, here, here, here, here, and here, and that's not even counting the AfDs on similar premises for teams in other sports. So clearly it's acceptable to create articles on seasons before they're over if they satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS, and there are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles about seasons still in progress, and even those that haven't started yet, across all sports. WP:OSE usually isn't an argument, but when there are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles, not to mention at least half a dozen AfDs, it's clear what consensus is. The only question is notability, which you haven't addressed at all. Smartyllama (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Crystal argument both unpersuasive and a red herring: if X is notable and a set of scheduled events related to X is sufficiently notable, then the fact that the set of events may have not yet been completed is no reason not to have an article, regardless of whether it's sports or otherwise.

The Keep AFDs you've listed, however, are for Division I team seasons while this article is of a Division II team season. Are you arguing that all Division II team seasons should be retained as presumed notable, or that this individual team meets notability requirements for its season? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Considering the school played and hosted several Division I schools in the Great Alaska Shootout, a significant tournament, they received significantly more coverage than most Division II schools. But as I said, if you want to discuss notability, let's discuss notability. But don't say it shouldn't be included because it's a future event, since that's wrong on multiple levels.Smartyllama (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally agree with nom's assessment. Also, this project is not a receptacle for indiscriminate collections of information such as general stats and a season schedule, including a TV schedule - give me a break! WP:NOTSTATS. This topic lacks any kind of significant coverage and therefore fails WP:V, and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has potential and AFD is not cleanup. See also WP:POTENTIAL. Also, the article doesn't say the team plays their home games at the Carlson Center. They played two neutral site games there. Their home games are at the Alaska Airlines Center which is also quite sizeable, so perhaps nominator is confused, but that does appear to be accurate and per WP:BEFORE should have been checked before nominator made complains about inaccuracy. Not to mention their home games draw far more than "75-100 fans" if nominator bothered to read the article. The two neutral site games in Fairbanks drew that many fans roughly, but for the most part they were drawing 10-20 times more than that, in actual home games. Now, attendance alone doesn't determine notability, but it would be nice if nominator showed some evidence he actually read the article before nominating. Smartyllama (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"AfD is not cleanup" sounds like a WP:NPA issue in this context. As far as potential, where are the sources that cover this season? Coverage of Division 1 teams began in the pre-season. You are claiming potential but not adding references to this article. And the nom has demonstrated WP:BEFORE. If this season is over, where is the coverage in reliable sources? Responding at AfD rather than adding sources either here or into the article does not demonstrate notability for this topic. Pointing fingers at the nominator also does not demonstrate notability for the topic. Steve Quinn (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have plenty more to say, but real life means that I'm playing catch up every time I'm on here. I wanted to address Smartyllama, particularly their mention of the Great Alaska Shootout in their most recent reply. Frankly, the Shootout is a shell of its former self. Before the NCAA closed the applicable loophole, UAA, UAF and Chaminade had a regular "turkey tournament circuit" going, benefiting from the fact that top-tier teams could play outside the continental U.S. without it counting towards their season limit. I have no idea about the current status WRT Chaminade, but UAF's Top of the World Classic ceased to exist quite some years ago because of the NCAA's action. The attendance figures I see in this article and in recent years' media reports for the Shootout don't impress me. The Anchorage Northern Knights were drawing bigger crowds before the bottom fell out of that team and they were playing in a high school gymnasium, albeit one with a much larger seating capacity than what UAA's Wells Fargo Center offered prior to the opening of the Alaska Airlines Center. Our coverage of the Shootout similiarly doesn't properly reflect what's notable, instead offering up a current edition article each year containing precious little more than a tournament bracket. The rationale of the keep voters appears to be that if the team is notable, then every last piece of minutiae related to the team is also notable. They also don't seem to respect the fact that encyclopedic content is intended to be read by a general audience, not "by fanboys, for fanboys". The only era of this team's existence that really stands out in my mind was when Hansi Gnad was there. Otherwise, pretty WP:ROUTINE, which is precisely all we're reflecting. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chaminade hosts the Maui Invitational, one of the most notable early-season tournaments. Smartyllama (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but retitle and repurpose to an article about he team. It's absurd to havean article about a particular season only. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 10 October 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jurabek Karimov[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. I see no jr titles in the grand slam events, nor a ranking of 3 or above. I also don't see a minor league championship on the Challenger tour. Fails WP:SPORT and WikiProject Tennis guidelines Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: In my search results, there's enough coverage in RS including one from BBC. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Karimov has recently played a Davis Cup tie for Uzbekistan, therefore he meets the WikiProject Tennis guidelines for notability. Keroks (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Keroks, that's good enough for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:07, 24 September 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] "Tu To Gayo". Facebook.com. Retrieved 20 September 2016.

[2] Abhimanyu, Mishral (16 September 2016). "Fresh Face contestants rule Gujarati films". No. Ahmedabad Times. The Times Group. The Times News Network. Retrieved 20 September 2016.

[3] Jha, Lata (9 September 2016). "Film wrap: 'Baar Baar Dekho', 'Freaky Ali', 'Sully' highlights of this week". No. E–paper. HT Media Ltd. Live Mint. Retrieved 15 September 2016.

[4] "Patel Vs. Patrick the film". Facebook.com. Retrieved 20 September 2016.

[5] Nath, Ojasvi (30 May 2016). "Singer Darshan Raval to debut as an actor with 'KK Patel v/s Patrick'". radioandmusic.com. R&M Radio & Music. Retrieved 20 September 2016.

[6] "Darshan Raval becomes highest paid actor in Gujarati film industry". Desh Gujarat. Desh Gujarat. 15 March 2016. Retrieved 15 September 2016.

[7] Mishra, Abhimanyu (17 September 2016). "Multistarrer Gujarati films are BO moneyspinners". No. Ahmedabad Times. The Times Group. TNN. Retrieved 21 September 2016.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]