Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 September	6 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 keep. References have been added, rendering the original nomination obsolete. Feel free to renominate if the references are considered not meeting WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV standards. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sex swing[edit]

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

No reliable sources in article, and I couldn't find any save for this short story in GQ. Fails WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Well its quite known device. I will try to look for some reliable sources to add. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I concur with Arthistorian that this device is pretty popular hence nearly a case of obvious. Pwolit iets (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known and used device within BDSM communities. 1.129.96.230 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based on their coverage in WP:Reliable sources. Do see WP:Notability. The above keep arguments are weak. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 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 keep. Clearly a WP:SNOW situation. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infonautics[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Page was recently deleted for being nothing but WP:PROMO. This incarnation isn't much better. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Seems to have had significant coverage. Sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG. The shape its in now does not reflect what it could be. I would advise the nominator to improve the article instead of tagging for deletion.--Church ^Talk 23:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not promotional now, and also has several third-party sources now. —MRD2014 (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - do I smell snow? This new version is neutral in tone and is supported by many references from independent reliable sources that signficantly discuss the topic. The nominators description is curious, and would seem to indicate that they neither reviewed the new stub, nor reviewed the new references, but rather were just on autopilot. The nominator may want to take a step back, slow down, and re-evaluate their working methods. I do hope this is not a pattern with them. (ping Zackmann08) -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator needs to be told to reset her or his sights in regard to deletion. There have been too many nominations recently devoid of any rationale based on policies or guidelines. Given the prejudice against us editors who prefer to reveal their IP addresses rather than hide behind a pseudonym it's best if I'm not the one to do that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not in the least promotional so the nomination is fundamentally flawed. Meets WP:GNG. WP:LISTED is also relevant. I declined the nominator's WP:G11 request because I was of the opinion that the page could be fixed by editing, and this version demonstrates that. (Having said that, in the interests of balance, I should say that another admin did delete the page so that was not a universal view). Just Chilling (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the admin who first deleted this from years ago as one who regularly speedily deleted articles even when such deletion had been validly contested, and it seems that he is going even further now and wheel-warring with other admins. It's bad enough having disruptive deletion nominators who may not realise that they are being disruptive, but why do we continue to put up with disruptive admins who should know better? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a pioneer in this technology, was at one time WP:LISTED, reasonably sourced and neutral in tone. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Stub with enough coverage to establish notability. the contents are written in a neutral language.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:30, 8 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alden Darby[edit]

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

Contested prod. Aspiring NFL player who has hung around on practice squads for a few years but has never appeared in a regular season game, thereby failing WP:NGRIDIRON. Has received some local coverage, but in my view not enough to meet WP:GNG. --Finngall ^talk 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only has played on practice squads. The coverage is all just routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is WP:NOTROUTINE and far beyond basic transaction listings (although there are a lot of those). There are also feature articles and references in multiple sources over many years including his college career that all together pass WP:GNG. Be sure to look past the first page of a google search when researching.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WikiOriginal-9 and Paulmcdonald. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage (i.e., coverage that goes beyond routine) in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His coverage is not routine, there are enough sources to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 10:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade X[edit]

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

This article is for an unreleased fanmade game that has no merit other than to promote itself. It should not have a Wikipedia article for it since it's not important at all. Brend0 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article documents 1 released game, 1 released mod, and 1 upcoming game this is publicly released as a beta which many people do in fact play. There is plenty of merit and importance to the article (though it could use some expansion), especially since it briefly documents both released and actively developed games. Disclaimer that I've sunk thousands of hours into this game as both a player and a developer. --AgentJess (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article clearly provides (and I bet I can identify others) reliable secondary sources treating the work significantly, meaning this topic is notable. Noms argument has no merit in Wikipedia policy. --Izno (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Covered by numerous reliable sources, including [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. This definitely meets notability. Its importance should not be take into consideration when it comes to deleting articles. (There are a lot of useless but notable stuff in the world) AdrianGamer (talk) 11:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there's room for a merge discussion here, but outright deletion is off the table thanks to the coverage highlighted above. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:28, 11 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baozilona[edit]

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

Amateur and local football league. No evidence of any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, has not played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Must be given a chance to add reliable references as the club has won two league titles. Umair Aj (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability given. I could be convinced if some evidence were provided during this discussion, as @Umair Aj: suggests exists. You've got time. That's why these discussions run for a whole week. Smartyllama (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a 7-a-side beer league - see http://www.chengdubeer.com/2013/03/chengdu-international-football-league-c-i-f-l/. Nfitz (talk)
Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the club hasn't played in their national cup competition. Also fails WP:GNG. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Donut[edit]

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

Cannot find anything to suggest notability, fails WP:BAND JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the one who tagged for notability this only-one-reference (and that non-independent) article, I might be expected to !vote delete. The nomination obliged me to complete a more thorough search, however. The results were five newspaper/magazine articles, and a paragraph in a book, all of which I've added to a further reading section in the article. It's enough to pass WP:BAND criterion #1. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like to say this, but this is a WP:BEFORE failure. Well-known punk band from the late '80s. Shedloads of coverage in paper publications of the time, you can see some of it in GBooks. Still get coverage in GNews. This is not a good nomination - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User Worldbruce edits should alleviate any concerns about this article not being properly sourced. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The first few pages of a Google search on the band name contain enough to make notability obvious. --Michig (talk) 17:43, 6 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Joy Of Creation: Reborn[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. No evidence of (and I'm unable to find) any coverage in RS sufficient to meet either WP:NVG or WP:GNG. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd PRODed this earlier, but it was removed. The game seems to have gotten the attention of a few LPers, but this didn't turn into any sort of coverage that would show notability on Wikipedia per WP:VG/RS. Being covered by LPers doesn't give notability either, regardless of the notability of the people themselves, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and videos of that nature aren't considered to be WP:RS on Wikipedia at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found to pass WP:NVG. The related article The Joy Of Creation was deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by Jimfbleak, but this does not apply for the article nominated here. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the the article this is a sequel to that game.--67.68.20.73 (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shadore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND per "legal recognition" in particular. A union council is the lowest legally recognized unit in Pakistan. This area is part of Shamdarra, so it is subordinate to a union council. It is also not listed here as a union, but Shamdarra is. Therefore, it should not have a standalone article, and existence alone is not sufficient to merit a redirect. The entirety of the content was created by a later-blocked sock. MSJapan (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A union council may be the lowest level of government in Pakistan, but that doesn't mean that no smaller units are legally recognised. They are different concepts. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Villages satisfy WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The question is not existence; a village passes if it is legally recognized - I haven't been able to determine that it is. MSJapan (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's an actual population center and the businesses on g-maps identify their addresses in Shadore which means it's a distinct recognized town for post purposes. --Oakshade (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. The use in postal addresses is a form of legal recognition. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:19, 11 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 Wax (rapper). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scrublife[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, fails WP:NALBUM. MSJapan (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wax (rapper), per nom. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:39, 12 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 Wax (rapper). (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Courage (Wax album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. NN indie album - all the links are commercial, and this didn't chart. MSJapan (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*'Keep~~ the existing reference to the review in rapreviews is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, more sources are needed though and not charting is a negative. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're assigning relative weight in the wrong direction here. I'm not so sure one online RS review offsets both the "major label release" and "charting" criteria for an album, given that it's also the only RS (so there's a general coverage problem, too). Everything else is download links. MSJapan (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed mind to Merge into the artist's page Wax (rapper) as one rs is not enough for WP:GNG, also the article has very little content except for the tracklist Atlantic306 (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wax (rapper) - no evidence of notability, hasn't charted anywhere. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:35, 12 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) 21:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RockSteady Choir[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original reason I gave in PROD was that there is a failure to cite any references or to even claim notability. I cannot find any WP:RSes to support the group's notability (WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO). The four sources added after PROD do not discuss band or are WP:PRIMARY. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is significant as it descibes the existance and success of an inner-city chancel choir in a world of declining church choirs - and why this choir has continued to thrive through this period. There is no attempt at self-promotion. The article attempts to be even-handed and informational through its use of external facts and references to a 'generalized' problem of declining choirs and indeed part of the reason for starting the article was to show ways that other small church choirs can thrive.
The article has references (see footnote numbers) to other WikiPedia pages on pertinent details.
The RockSteady Choir is a notable example of how this choir is 'bucking the trend' of decline in inner-city church chancel choirs and the information of how it has proceeded to 'reinvent' itself may be of general interest to other choirs facing similar exigencies.

I hope this addresses concerns and will preclude deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs)

This choir may well be important to some people for the above reasons, but what is required for a Wikipedia article to exist is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as described at WP:GNG. Has anyone unconnected to this choir written and published anything about it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This choir does not have 'notoriety' in the sense that there are a lot of online published coverage of its activities. However, both the nature and diversity that makes the choir unique and an example to other small church choirs is found in its online presence - even if only in the some 120 video excepts of its performances. The sheer length of its historical existence with continuity to its current iteration as the RockSteady Choir surely has some significance. Again, there is nothing intended in this Wikipedia entry that is intended as self-promotion or based on vested interest - it has been posted because the RockSteady Choir has shown that they can be category breakers by ongoing innovation and change in the latter years of their existence. Their use of old technology (the pipe organ) and new technology - in concert - shows a fresh approach that might be inspirational to other choirs. In fact, the last YouTube Video that was posted shows a mixture of old and new accompaniment technology where the accompanist is using a combination of a Yamaha keyboard mounted atop the pipe organ console - and the pipe organ. Surely these things make the choir and its styles somewhat unique and worthy of an entry in Wikipedia.

Articles have been written about the choir in small 'in-house' church journals and news magazines - however these have not been generally available in digital distribution. Would the lack of 'searchable' coverage online be enough to justify removal of the page? I hope not - as Wikipedia would seem to exemplify the eclecticism of our world - things both great and small. An example of something that doesn't really have a lot of 'online coverage' is the 'nail'. There is a Wikipedia page for this item. nail (fastener) Perhaps the ubiquitous 'nail' speaks for itself, but sometimes things more easily deemed obscure - perhaps such as an inner-city church choir - might be of interest to archivists in the future looking for information on small gospel choirs in churches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that the choir appreciates the editing and changes to the page by Wikipedia editors in the few days of its existence. As the expression goes - "It takes a village...etc" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OSE and stick to providing information to support either WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO for the choir. While nails don't have online sources, they have thirteen sources that discuss the term. They're also commonly used. My house would not be standing without a nail, but it would stand without RockSteady Choir. Similarly, if I were to speak to someone about a nail, I don't know of anyone who would not know of what I am speaking. If I call my brother or any of his family members in Southern Ontario, I doubt they would have any clue who the RockSteady Choir are, but they would all know what a nail is. And so if you can find reliable sources that are not published online that discuss the choir, such as academic journals or print media, by all means, supply those as sources. However, in-house content does not qualify as a reliable source and would be excluded from conferring notability on the subject. Concert reviews in The Toronto Star, or the like, would be acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no referable online articles on the choir to which I am aware - as it is an amateur group and concerts and events that it attends and sponsors are not likely to receive published attention in major news outlets or online reviews. It is the uniqueness of the choir that is being touted. I accept your argument about my less than stellar example of a 'nails Wiki' - and even that there might not be much universal effect from the existence of the RockSteady Choir to date - however, the pace of change is slow in the choral world. One thing that makes this group of mostly senior adults from various ethnic backgrounds notable, is in its very existence in a world of more conventionally professional choirs. My supposition is that sometimes the 'little things' get lost in the shuffle. Perhaps if more people knew of the RockSteady Choir - as an example of a progressive church choir - more persons might be persuaded to join choirs in general although the point of creation of the Wikipedia article is not for that purpose - it is merely informational. I submit that the existence of the choir is indeed having an impact on local church choirs, what can be accomplished on a shoestring budget and the perception of church choirs in general - at least in the Toronto area...and if this is true - knowledge of the choir and its composition and style, might prove of more than just curious interest - in the longer term. If you cut off a plant as it is just beginning to grow - surely nothing will ever come of it. If you let the plant thrive for a while, it can produce useful byproducts. The effect of this choir in the larger pool of 'choral' groups is so far small, admittedly - but it is quantifiable even by the measure of 'published performances' on internet. No attempt is being made to advertise this choir for any monetary reasons - it exists as a musical group that somehow carves out a different 'niche' to the rest of the choirs. I submit that this uniqueness is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqueness is not a criteria for inclusion though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Katiefelix2015, sources do not have to be online but they do need to be reliable and not trivial. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that Katiefelix2015 does not have RSes. The way I have read her comments, she has self-published sources and trivial comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I respectfully disagree about the trivial comments and 'self-published' sources? The genesis of the choir is partially related to the area in which the choir's base church is located. A Wikipedia footnote link to this inner-city area (with many early 20th. century churches) St. Clair Avenue had been provided but seems to have been edited out. (It has been changed into an 'online link' see correction after this note) This area is in itself historically significant and as mentioned - the way the RockSteady Choir has survived is because they were able to adapt - where many other church choirs have ceased to exist. The eclectic mix of songs is testament to their flexible and adaptable approach to surviving and indeed thriving. Most choirs that 'survive' end up being 'self-promoting'...This choir seems to do what they love to do (all the while incorporating more modern techniques). It might be also interesting to note that even the internet promotion for their 13th annual 'Choir Concert' last June instructs that no admission charge is made and no tickets are sold. This is hardly a profit-making venture and the Wikipedia page seeks merely to illustrate the uniqueness of the choir, in the context of other gospel choirs (many of whom do operate in a profit-making mode) I see that the references to the somewhat rare 'pipe organ' accompaniment (especially for a 'gospel choir') have remained in the article. But what makes the choir unusual is the broad mix of styles and accompaniments. You can see many examples of this multi-faceted approach to their work in their online videos. I have always appreciated this choir - in fact, have followed it for many, many years...and I think that their presence in the world of 'gospel choirs' is worthy of noting. Lastly, it seems that the lack of 'published' articles or reviews is being used as a major criterion for potential deletion of the page. That strikes me as odd, as Wikipedia has always been a resource that references 'things' both great and small - that have intrinsic interest or value. Perhaps this is not a 'front-line' choir - nor, will it ever be - I don't know - but I respectfully submit again that the choir is unusual enough (constitution, music, ages and backgrounds, home base etc) that it does merit a Wikipedia page. I concur that 'uniqueness alone' doesn't qualify an item for Wikipedia inclusion - but I see this choir as more than just a 'choir' - it seems to be the flower that grows in the crevice of the rock - against all odds. I am of Christian belief myself, and the rarity of having any sort of online presence for belief-based organizations - as opposed to secular ones - is also glaringly obvious if you search the 'net'. Nevertheless, that was not my prime motivation for creating this page - I just mention it as a circumstantial fact that might be of some interest in the overall discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

my apologies...the footnote reference to 'St. Clair Avenue' was not deleted as stated above, it was converted into an 'online link'

Comment -- This seems to be about a church choir that periodically gives public concerts (perhaps one per year). Is that really enough to make it notable? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

well, I think the fact that it gives a few public concerts per year - (and I think that there are more than one a year, but not publicized) - is not the point. The uniqueness of this group is, I feel - their ability to change and modify themselves to differing generational needs and pressures - whilst still maintaining a unified and recognizable public face - as the Rocksteady Choir. It is no small feat to maintain headway in a world where 'church choirs' are fading away. I have followed this choir for years (since the early 80's) and seen this gradual metamorphosis - perhaps the notability of the choir lays in their ability to maintain headway where many others have failed? This is a disparate group of persons who, if asked - would probably not say that they are doing anything other than what they love to do - that is, sing. However, If you heard them, you would likely agree that the choir is noteworthy in the unique blend of styles which somewhat defines their existence. This is not a 'world class' choir in the sense of artistic excellence - but to me, it is interesting enough that others might be intrigued by them and find their journey of interest. Certainly, if it were just a church choir that gives periodic concerts - there would be little justification for a Wikipedia page - but they are not just that. They would seem to embody a 'never-give-up' attitude that makes them stand out among the scores of other inner-city church choirs to which I am aware. You know, I love to surf through Wikipedia and discover interesting facts and little-known things...I can imagine landing, by chance, on the Rocksteady Choir page and being intrigued - even if I knew little about choirs. Wikipedia is a treasure trove of such 'hidden gems'. On the other had, how some pages still exist without any protestation at all, is a mystery to me. Like this wonderful page I fell upon: Young Merlin that would seem to refer to a terribly obscure video game from 1994. I don't know...I think the Rocksteady choir is more interesting in even a general sense...but then again...others evidently do not feel this way. Aside from editors stumbling upon pages and deciding that they might or might not have merit - is there a good reason why the Rocksteady choir should NOT have a stable (not pending deletion) listing in Wikipedia? (now that we have discussed whether or not in our opinions it is notorious enough to merit a page) Katiefelix2015 (talk) 06:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC) katie[reply]

Again, uniqueness is not a criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are. And for the record, Young Merlin has five reliable sources for 156 words. That's about one source for every 30 words. Every reference is talking about the subject. Not the kind of computers used to program the game. Not the type of cardboard used in the box (with a reference about how cardboard is recyclable). These are references about the subject. And that's the difference between the two topics: the video game article doesn't ramble and has five sources; this article rambles, and has no sources to support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to recommend this page be trimmed and merged to a section on a new St. Clair Avenue Baptist Church page, but unfortunately I can't find enough coverage for the church to argue that topic would be notable. The church is, however, listed here: St._Clair_Avenue, and so if the creator of this topic wanted to keep any of this information, perhaps they could squeeze some relevant sentences about the choir there. So basically, attempt to redirect/merge, or delete. Yvarta (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to user Yvarta: I agree that the church itself is not 'notable' (except for its historical nature). The point of the Wikipedia article is to showcase the Rocksteady choir (which does happen to be their chancel choir - but it is not in the connection to the church, that their notability lies - it is in their unique approach.
Comment - Again, I initially chose this choir as a suitable candidate for Wikipedia due to its innovative and unusual nature (a combination of modern high-tech accompaniment and use of a pipe organ - and the diverse ethnic makeup of the choir (as noted on the Wiki page, although the general 'flavour' of the choir is 'black gospel) there are in its makeup other nationalities and ethnic backgrounds (Canadian aboriginal, Brazilian/Portugese national and others) which is certainly not your 'usual church choir') - and neither is the eclectic mix of styles and influences demonstrated in their performances. I submit that this page contains information that other small to medium choirs might find of use in their own development and thus, is not 'just a page about a church choir'. The information and presentation of the choir on this Wikipedia page could not be inserted on the St. Clair Avenue Baptist Church webpage due to space limitation - and also, some of the detailed information regarding styles and accompaniment would be perhaps a bit to 'arcane' for the church's general page. The information given about the choir on the church's website is basic information only. I have tried to document the special nature of this choir in the Wikipedia after doing a thorough analysis of their techniques and repertoire. Katiefelix2015 (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2016 (UTC) Katie[reply]
- Let me tell you one more time: innovation is not a criteria for notability. You have written a lot about what they have done, but you have not supported anything with reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- hello...what do you consider are 'reliable sources'? The would be no reportage on many things of interest if the discussion did not start somewhere. I have based my discourse about this choir on having been at their performances and from the numerous online videos. When Henry Ford started producing his very first vehicles, they were hardly recognizable as 'cars', and yes, nobody cared...but eventually, someone with a prescient view began to document his innovation...and we all know the rest of that story. I am asking you to not be so rigid in your judgement criteria, and try to see what I and others have seen - a choir that is truly different in a groundbreaking way - conventional notoriety being absent. Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi. Have you read any of the links provided above? Here they are: WP:GNG (general notability guideline) Henry Ford's Model-T would have met this criteria as they were heavily publicized. If they hadn't, they would not have had an encyclopedia article at that time and they would not have had a Wikipedia article at that time (had Wikipedia existed); WP:MUSICBIO (guidelines for determining the notability of musicians and groups); WP:RS what constitutes a reliable source. Read them. Understand them. Ask questions on the talk pages of those pages as to how they work. This is a discussion about the article. I'm rather tired of you trying to argue your way into an article for this group. I will no longer respond to your questions. Feel free to take it to an admin. I will also remove any further additions you make if they are unreferenced or tangential to the group (we don't care that they use a pipe organ, with an external-looking link to a wikipedia article on pipe organs, or wear pure polyester robes, with an external-looking link to a wikipedia article on polymers, or their music arrangements are printed on recycled paper, with an external-looking link to a wikipedia article on paper production, or anything that you think makes them unique or innovative or any other adjective you care to throw out). We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not a compendium of interesting, unique, innovative, peculiar or curious topics. If you want to help to build an encyclopedia, feel free to follow the rules for creating good articles. If not, I can suggest a few blogging sites that might want your contributions. No offence intended. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- hello...not to make too fine a point - but Henry Ford had three notable business failures before he had any particular notoriety. I would take this to an admin, as I honestly feel that this choir is worthy of note - however, I do not know how to do that. By the way, my reasons to including the pipe organ company, is that this particular organ - in operational form - is now exceedingly rare. For a gospel choir to use such an instrument, especially in combination with an electronic keyboard is more unusual. You make the point that 'unusual/unique' etc. does not make the subject a candidate for Wikipedia entry. Okay, I accept that. I never thought that I would face such opposition in creating a documenting this topic. Perhaps I am missing something, but today - I lost a bit of hope in the future of the net. I suppose I will 'throw in the towel'. Please remove the page and the original 'Rocksteady Choir' page that is archived. I will leave the submitted photos up (in Wikimedia Commons) - unless, they too are deemed to have too little validity for inclusion. - Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I figured I'd do everyone a favour by 'blanking'/erasing the page I created that has not met the standards of Wikipedia. I suppose it is not that simple, as the page seems to be back 'up' again. Perhaps if there was some support for keeping the page up by providing 'reliable references' I would do that, but it seems that my attempt at unbiased journalism for an unworthy topic has been deemed insufficient for Wikipedia inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiefelix2015 (talk • contribs) 07:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Katiefelix2015: As mentioned in my message on your talk page, I'm afraid you can't do that. While you could !vote delete here and state that you would prefer your created article to be deleted, since a deletion discussion has been started on the article, now we have to all decide together. Who knows, if people votes to keep your article, your article can still stand. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 08:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with Optakeover. While you created the page, at the bottom of every edit page is the following statement: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." In other words, you don't own the article, the Wikipedia community does. The best you can do is remove unreferenced content and associate it with the venerability policy. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 18 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 Wax (rapper). May meet NALBUMs but clearly fails GNG, As noted below the article needs sources which for this album there's a lack of, Nothing to merge (or worth merging anyway) so closing as Redirect (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Livin Foul[edit]

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

Indie artist, indie album, fails WP:NALBUM. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Barely passes WP:NALBUM by charting in Billboard's Rap Albums chart. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - chart placing is prima facie notability, but redirecting to discography section of artist page with a ref for the chart placing would preserve the information and work just as well for readers - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure why I couldn't get that charting, because I looked, but what's interesting is that the chart placement is there if you look at the link given, but the chart itself for the date only goes to 15. I'm also not 100% sure that the rap chart is uncategorically "charting" - there's some wiggle room with genre charts, based on the fact that reaching #1 on a chart that needs 50K sales to get there is not the same as one where it needs 5000. We've had the same issue with the New Age charts, so I wouldn't rubber stamp it if that's the only thing we have. MSJapan (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a perfectly valid minor chart for the purposes of WP:NMUSIC to establish prima facie notability. But as I noted, we need actual sources, else it'll be just as useful as a chart reference on a discography listing - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:37, 12 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 Wax (rapper). (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eviction Notice (Wax album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. I'm not concerning myself with the validity of the sources, because the sources are trivial anyway. The commercial placement might meet NSONG, but that doesn't extend to the album meeting WP:NALBUM; they're independent criteria. MSJapan (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wax (rapper), per nom. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wax (rapper), per nom. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:40, 12 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 Wax (rapper). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:51, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Cookout Chronicles[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NMUSIC. No assertion of notability, either. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wax (rapper), per nom. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep or merge to Wax per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:41, 12 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder (CMS)[edit]

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

Non-notable Drupal distribution. The sources in the article, 2 of which are in German, are not reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree, this distribution is not an obscure topic, since lots of journalists in Germany did report the start of Thunder, and also some international media. I just added another source in English. I don't see why the mentioned sources should not be reliable, since these are both official information and independent media coverage.Juliapradel (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)— Juliapradel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Content of that reference aside, heise.de is reliable source. Non-English page doesn´t mean not-reliable. Pavlor (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created by (now blocked) Hubert Burda Media (talk), which is name of the company behind Thunder (CMS). Pavlor (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like Pavlor I think heise.de is a reliable source, too, as well as meedia.de. This article has been created by Hubert Burda Media, but doesn’t sound promotional, but only states facts.Dominik.kipar (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)— Dominik.kipar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment- The Heise article does not appear reliable. Their business services page states that they use content originating with manufacturers and service providers. (see https://business-services.heise.de/ueber-uns.html); the article is very short, and does little to suggest that the product is notable.Dialectric (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is not "Heise business services", but Heise online news. Source for the article is (probably) dpa and its author is Axel Kannenberg - member of ct magazine staff. Pavlor (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently the only !votes are from SPAs so I'll relist again to get some independent opinions Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 5 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. The (last minute) suggestion to redirect to Miss California USA certainly seems reasonable, but I'm not going to impose that in this close. If anybody wants to go ahead and create the redirect later, no prejudice against that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Martinez[edit]

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

This is a one line article with one not really reliable source. No substantial coverage. Martinez may one day be notable for something, she is clearly not now. The history of the article is complex. It evidently survived a mass deletion attempt last January or so, but the article history itself only dates back to last month. So I can't figure out if it was unilaterally deleted at some point, or what. John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 27 August 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 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty Pageants-related deletion discussions. PageantUpdater (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the coverage I see is local to Orange County, such as OC Register or Inland Valley Bulletin. This is a WP:BIO1E situation; the subject is not independently notable. No better sources are listed in the article (in fact it contains no RS at all). K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just a pretty face. Sources include in-depth (which says Martinez is a news anchor, a former Laker girl, dancer, played Princess Jasmine at Disney (ie an actor), etc) and another in-depth and in-depth here and she speaks her mind and gets coverage here. Overall she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'm not convinced that the above coverage meets GNG. For example, OC Register and Daily Bulletin are extremely local sources. "Princess Jasmine at Disney" -- not sure that this makes her an actress. She gets mentioned in NBC News for being a Latina participating in Trump's pageant. This is still BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Overall, the sources are local, bloggy (?) -- Heavy.com (which is two paragraphs, not in depth), and news relating to the pageant. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orange County has 3 million residents and the Orange County Register is a daily broadsheet with a quarter million readers, and more on Sunday -- so it's not a local newspaper by any stretch, and clearly qualifies as a reliable source. Being a news anchor is not a BIO1E. And her speaking out on behalf of Latinos nationwide on things like the Trump candidacy simply confirm she meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A beauty pageant winner, by itself, isn't much, I think we can agree about that -- but being a model, actor, a TV news host => multiple aspects of her => in-depth sources => meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I do not find the sources to be in depth; being a princess at Disneyland is not an actress; news host is not a notable profession. The title is Miss California but newspapers in other parts of the state did not cover the win. The sources amount to a WP:PSEUDO biography:

...model, beauty pageant winner, and on-air television personality.^[1] She won the Miss California pageant in 2015.^[2] She is a Latina TV on-air host for KDOC-TV in Southern California.^[3]^[4] Martinez grew up in southern California and played classical piano since the age of nine.^[1] She was a Laker girl, a cheerleader for the Los Angeles Lakers basketball team.^[3] She performed in the role of Princess Jasmine at Disneyland.^[4]^[3] She graduated from Chapman University with a degree in broadcast journalism.^[4] She has raised money for cancer research.^[3] When Miss USA owner and presidential candidate Donald Trump spoke against immigration, Martinez decided against quitting the pageant as a protest.^[5]

References

^ ^a ^b "Miss California USA is Chino Hills woman Natasha Martinez". Daily Bulletin. January 12, 2015. Retrieved September 2, 2016. ...Martinez, a former Laker Girl, model for Univision and Princess Jasmin at Disneyland, is a graduate of Chapman University in broadcast journalism. She recently finished an internship with ABC's "On The Red Carpet" and is the host of KDOC's "What a City Eats."...
^ "Fomer Titleholders". misscausapageant.com/. Retrieved 21 July 2016.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Lauren Weigle (July 12, 2015). "Miss California Natasha Martinez – Miss USA 2015 Contestant". Heavy magazine. Retrieved September 2, 2016. ...Martinez, who told the Associated Press: It was hard to hear. I think it's important to understand that immigrants come here looking for a better life, ...
^ ^a ^b ^c Jonathan Winslow (February 10, 2015). "Winning pageant a huge career boost for Chapman grad Natasha Martinez". Orange County Register. Retrieved September 2, 2016. ...Martinez ... Miss California USA...Martinez graduated from Chapman in 2014 with a degree in broadcast journalism. ... Martinez was offered a job as a host for KDOC TV (LA56)
^ Allison Takeda (July 3, 2015). "Miss USA Contestants Speak Out on Donald Trump Controversy: "Not Once Did I Think About Dropping Out"". Us Magazine. Retrieved September 2, 2016. ...since Donald Trump's controversial remarks about immigration ... Martinez added that she ...pageant," she insisted. "I feel very passionate about my family's background and their ability to grow in this country."

Even the coverage in the Trump aftermath does not amount to much since she did not resign in protest. This is wholly unremarkable. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's agree to disagree. News media such as Us Magazine and the Daily Mail and the Orange County Register think she's notable -- which is why they wrote about her. I think TV news host is a notable profession -- and playing Jasmine for thousands of people at Disneyland is acting -- and that southern California is a huge market. For the record, I think it's commendable on her part that she stuck with the pageant, despite the Trump controversy -- sticking to her guns.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would describe the coverage is run-of-the-mill, which WP:MILL cautions against. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for beauty pageant and news host. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a AFD precedent that winning a state beauty pageant does not automatically confer notability. I see no other in-depth coverage of anything else. Her comments on Trump would be the closest other thing, but I don't find them significant because there is not much depth there and even it there were more it would still be WP:BLP1E. Everything else in the article is just routine background info. MB 04:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pagent, Fails GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 23:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MB. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply being a pageant member alone is not at all a basis of actually keeping or substantiating her own independent notability; frankly none of the listed information actually comes close to convincing since there's simply that: being a pageant member. SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Winning a state beauty pageant does not automatically confer notability in general, except for the one special case ofthe contests that go to make up Miss America. Contrary to what the article seems to state, she wa not Miss California, but miss California USA, which is part of Miss USA. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have literally no idea why you seem to believe there's any consensus that Miss America contestants are somehow more notable that Miss USA, that's utter nonsense. As for the obvious error you noticed, why not fix it? --- PageantUpdater (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upon consideration, redirect to Miss California USA as a valid search term, and the subject is mentioned there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 18 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 Curt Schilling Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shonda Schilling[edit]

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

I'm nominating on behalf of an IP who says "There is nothing that indicates that she is notable. Except that she is married to a famous person, and had cancer, and helps charities, and runs marathons. If any of that is important, it can be in his article I guess. Appreciated"
I have no opinion on the AFD, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick perusal suggests there are many sources with SS's name in the headline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As she doesn't to appear to have enough notability on her own apart from her husband. @Tomwsulcer, I saw those links too however many of those were about the couple and their selling of their house, or an article about her husband that she was referenced in. I wouldn't say that gives here separate notability. (Even though she's from Dundalk, so I have a bias to her of course:)) RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Northamerica ("Shonda 'The Boss' Schilling weighs in on Curt's prospects", and "Curt Schilling’s Wife Rips ESPN Over Network’s Alleged Snub Of Husband" and "Shonda Schilling Running Boston Marathon To Thank Dana Farber ...") - plus, not all the sources are ones that we would consider appropriate. And some is decidedly non-notable "wife of Schilling runs the marathon, etc.). 199.102.168.8 (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems a fine alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.168.8 (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Curt Schilling as a plausible search term. She's in the news enough that people have heard of her and might search for her, but not enough to confer notability. Smartyllama (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as I'm not seeing any more notability than your average baseball player's wife. She is a plausible search term though. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:40, 13 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 deleted WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax by Bbb23. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Princeley Show[edit]

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

Incomplete unsourced affair that fails WP:GNG. Seems like an hoax. The Banner talk 22:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 5 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Channii[edit]

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

No significant sources (although sources available on Internet for this article are limited to begin with), no evidence of notability, very little information, poor grammar (including capitalization and punctuation) AnonymousMusician (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - a classic WP:TOOSOON. Has been featured singer on one single. May well have a career, but we'd need WP:RSes to keep this BLP - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:44, 5 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 Nikki Yanofsky. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Young Love (Nikki Yanofsky song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Did not chart. MSJapan (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist - I would say "redirect to album", but that actually directs here - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- David Gerard: that's because the album itself was AfD'd a couple of months ago. This is a fourth non-charting single from a non-charting album – redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. Richard3120 (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah. She's notable - had multiple hits - but neither this nor that are amongst them - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Improve referencing or redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. As an aside, since the album was deleted at AfD could this have been a non controversial redirect? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- She's too cruft-prone to do things like this without consensus - I've told one editor six times to stop adding non-existent material to her article. It's literally "she announced a title on her Instagram - gotta go make an article on it." MSJapan (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - yeah, best nail this in place - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. All songs that exist are not automatically appropriate topics for standalone articles just because their existence can be referenced to primary sources like the artist's own social media accounts and/or the song's "buy it" page on iTunes — a song does not qualify for a standalone article until it can be reliably sourced as achieving something (e.g. charting as a Top 40 hit, or winning the Juno or Grammy Award for Single of the Year) that would get it past WP:NSONGS. That's not the case here as of yet, however. Normally the album it comes from would be the preferred redirect for a song title, but even the album is as yet unreleased and as yet unreferenceable to RS coverage, and existed only as a redirect to Yanovsky's BLP until it was retargeted to point here instead (it should also be repointed back to her BLP again.) Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nikki Yanofsky. Single did not chart and was not even a heatseeker / bubbilng under at Billboard. No strong tie-in to other media. Album article does not exist either so discography may for the best. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 8 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 objections to renomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talei Burns[edit]

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a musician with no particularly strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. Except for one news article in a reliable source, the referencing here is otherwise entirely of the Blogspotty-Youtubey-Facebooky variety, which is not acceptable sourcing -- and one news article isn't enough to get a person over WP:GNG by itself. As always, a musician is not entitled to a Wikipedia article just because she exists; RS coverage must be present to verify an NMUSIC pass, but nothing here passes NMUSIC and the sourcing isn't solid enough. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete- as no WP:RS source has in depth coverage. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:41, 5 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Korrekt (musician)[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He hasn't been discussed in multiple reliable sources. The Leadership Newspaper source is the only promising source I could find. The subject simply hasn't done enough to warrant a stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable musician who fails GNG. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you are right when you say the article fails WP:GNG but his a notable musician. The subject has being discussed in several newspaper sites and magazines which have not being included. WP:GNG discussed about reliable source editors can help by improving the article. Jamzy4 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just made a research on Google and found out that the subject has independent source also have been discuss in several newspaper and magazine, issue will be fixed.Jamzy4 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- Subject of article has being improve with multiple reliable source like newspaper according to WP:GNG. Editors are free to contribute to the article when discussion is closed. Please note that Wikipedia policy are right and can not change. According to WP:MUSICBIO, it says musician may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:. Subject meets WP:MUSICBIO 1,2, 4,6, 7,8, 10. Jamzy4 (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing in mostly reproductions of press releases, as is the one the nominator suggests may be good. Same press release is all over the place [18]. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sole keep vote comes from the article creator, a single-purpose account with apparent undeclared conflict of interest, considering the claim to self-authorship for the professional-quality image he/she uploaded of this artist. Citobun (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually i suggest this a wrong tag for this article instead a tag should be place on the article saying contributors can help by adding reliable source, According to my understanding on wikipedia is says "Remember all good articles today started with a bad issues".--Jamzy4 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Northern Fury FC season[edit]

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

Seasons of a semi-professional club playing in a not fully-professional league. Doesn't pass WP:NSEASONS. Also is not referenced and most of the matches don't have reports linked either. SuperJew (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the following two seasons of same club in the same league, and aren't notable for the same reason, as well as also being almost completely unreferenced:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. SuperJew (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand why this wasn't brought up months back when I brought up the idea of making the missing articles here (they could have the necessary references added). Subsequently, Northern Fury were initially created as a top level A-League club, making their top flight season articles "notable". As for their articles with them in the second highest tier of Australian football, I think there's enough notability to warrant their season articles being kept, especially without fear of them being relegated further into the abyss of non-notability. - J man708 (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Must of gone unnoticed. Also, the discussion regarding starting new season pages for NPL/Youth teams made me think about this one too. No argument that the seasons when they were in the A-League are notable and that is why I didn't bring those seasons up in the deletion nomination. Sorry, but the second highest tier of Australian football is not fully professional, and therefore not notable enough for seasons. --SuperJew (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but believe it or not, subjects can pass GNG while failing their respective field's Wikipedia guidelines. Panos Armenakas and Jake Brimmer for example. You don't have to be such a deletionist about everything... Why not try to fix it, first? - J man708 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as they fail WP:NSEASONS. The club's seasons in the top division are undoubtedly notable, but these are not. It was actually pointed out when this was raised on the taskforce page that these may not meet the required notability standards; I would suggest a better place to ask questions on notability would be the main WT:FOOTY page where more editors will be able to give input. Number 5 7 08:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's nothing in WP:NSEASONS that talks about fully professional teams or leagues. On the subject of professionality, is uses the term "professsional" rather than "fully-professional" which is the requirement for players. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Verbatim quote (emphasis added by me): Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. --SuperJew (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, It doesn't say top fully-professional leagues. Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, how does this meet notability? There are no references apart from WP:ROUTINE, and even those are lacking. --SuperJew (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we used THAT standard, we'd be deleting seasons articles for Premier League teams! It meets WP:NSEASONS. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. They all fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. As Super Jew says, NSEASONS stipulates that individual season article should be only created for teams in "top professional league". NPL QLD is neither "top" nor "professional". 2014 Northern Fury FC season is unreferenced and I can find no sources that are not routine, reliable and in-depth so that the articles pass WP:GNG. The same goes for the other articles. Nfitz's rationale is nothing to do with the articles and more based on perceived inconsistencies in the policies. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Yellow Dingo. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fail NSEASONS, club has not been competing in a top professional league. Fenix down (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The league IS professional, and it is a top league, only one-level below fully-profesional. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 11:23, 17 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Ice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No nontrivial biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmel Moore (2nd nomination) for analysis of why UKAFTA fails PORNBIO standard. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pronographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP as an article about a living person with no reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i'm not optimistic about the fact that this nomination proceeded despite the fact that we are still in flux in regards to criteria for porn-related articles. As such, as it stands, this article is not non-notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is not in a state of flux. There's no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Only the AVN ref is even arguably a reliable source. A biography of a living person that is sourced as paper-thinly as this one kinda demands deletion. David in DC (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:BLP and WP:V, which this topic fails spectactularly, are certainly not in a state of flux. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without reliable sources, and given that UKAFTA has been shown to be pure fiction (see this link [19]), the the subject fails GNG and therefore BLP.Steve Quinn (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADIRECTORY; the article contains no bio data. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)÷[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. WP:PORNBIO is explicitly clear: Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. Well, she has won an AVN award[20] — the question is whether this award counts. Because the award is "Best Sex Scene in a Foreign-Shot Production" and includes a number of other performers, this award appears to be both scene- and ensemble-related. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Parker[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 17:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: some sources show up, but I don't think those sources aren't suffiencent. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 21:10, 5 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. If he does get called up, then this can be recreated. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sabourin[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article on a marginal minor-leaguer created, as part of a pattern of routine and knowing defiance of notability standards resulting in several hundred AfDs/CSDs/PRODs, by an editor since community banned from new article creation. Has never met NHOCKEY, no evidence of meeting the GNG beyond routine sports reporting explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 11:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after start of 2016-17 NHL season confirms that the multi-year NHL prospect does not move up from junior hockey league.Canuckle (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 17:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:04, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck This Jam[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG Lewis Hulbert (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are zero reliable sources in this article. All primary sources. Non notable.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 17:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Montanabw^(talk) 04:00, 7 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. The delete arguments that Bing does not meet the WP:GNG and that the industry award does not fall under WP:PORNBIO (and even if it does, would not trump GNG) are more convincing.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carmella Bing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nontrivial biographical content. No reliable sourcing for biographical content. No independent reliable sourcing. Prior AFD did not reach consensus on whether the UKAFTA awards meet the "well-known and significant industry award standard" of PORNBIO; it has since become clear that they do not because: 1) it was not an industry award, but a personal moneymaking project of one individual and a production company he was associated; the industry group which supposedly sponsored it denies any connection to the awards [21]; 2) the award was "pay-for-play", with even an award winner acknowledging that "it seemed that all it took to win awards was a few phone calls to the right people and an advance payment for a full table at the event";[22] and 3) the awards were notoriously given to unrelased videos [23][24], and even to non-existent/never-released videos (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Brooks (actress) (2nd nomination). This is a BLP with no verifiable content concerning the article subject and her work, and that alone compels deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No evidence that she even meets Pornbio. I will also point out that I have doubts that the IAFD source that is so widely used in this article is a WP:RS since the database is "maintained by a volunteer staff of editors" and the site solicits contribution from readers. Meters (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Movie Database (IMDB), Internet Adult Film Database (IAFD), and Adult Film Database (AFD) are not reliable sources - they are not independent and lack any kind of editorial integrity needed to qualify as reliable sources WP:RS. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- there is some coverage here and here and a mention in Cosmopolitan and a write-up in a Spanish publication.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Update 575+ pageviews a day means there's a huge fan base here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- "Some coverage"? Local news reports of a misdemeanor meth-related conviction that is so minor it was scheduled to be expunged from her criminal record in 90 days so long as she complied with what are, in effect, probation conditions? That clearly has nothing to do with notability and under BLP policy doesn't belong in the article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it was a normal non-celeb civilian with a meth charge, yes, it would be a non-issue -- but celebrities doing drugs is a big deal in the world of pop culture, which is the world we all swim in, including Wikipedia. It's how things are. Like it or not, a porn star's meth romp causes huge media attention, which spells, in Wikipedia, n-o-t-a-b-i-l-i-t-y.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know better than this, Tom. Brief pieces in a local newsweekly aren't huge media attention; and this kind of mini-coverage wouldn't establish notability in any other context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - won of award, meets of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 06:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Im not optimistic about deleting articles when (as it currently stands) we are still in flux as our understanding of criteria for articles such as this one. Therefore, at least for now, this article is not non-notable. Pwolit iets (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Our understanding of WP:GNG and WP:RS is not in flux. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When active, she has been one of the most well-known performers. That's why I'm pretty sure that the article only needs to be improved. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an argument to delete without prejudice to recreating, not an argument to keep. A poorly sourced BLP should be deleted immediately. David in DC (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Wikipedia article must be based on significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources, per WP:GNG. This article, on the other hand, is based primarily on IAFD, which, for the reasons stated by Meters is not a reliable source, per WP:RS. There's also one reference that purports to source a nomination for a major industry award, which I guess is meant to bring this under the SNG for WP:PORNBIO. However, as the nominator points out, this ain't anything like the kind of award contemplated by PORNBIO. Plus, an SNG cannot trump GNG.
As far as press coverage of a porn star's "meth romp" conferring notability as that term is defined on WP, that may be true in a mechanistic way. It generates a lot of press, some of which may be press that qualifies as reliable sources. Nonetheless, not everything that's in the press belongs in Wikipedia. WP:NOT has a specific clause about WP:NOTGOSSIP.
And as for the number of daily pageviews meaning anything at all in our AfD analysis, I disagree, strongly. I'm guessing that there's a public appetite for a great many things that don't belong here. If we're gonna make decisions based on pageviews, we're gonna add a whole lotta crap and delete a whole lot of important, notable, well-sourced info. !Voting is evil but not anywhere as evil as letting the lowest common denominator determine what goes in our encyclopedia. David in DC (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean you're less likely to consider a reliable trusted tertiary source such as Boobpedia?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Or that you might not heed the words of a serious critic who wrote her art is the result of her understanding and compassion for the world about her, and a staggering depth and incredible empathy which flows from some secret place within the unique parameters of her soul.?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the I can edit boobpedia. So it seems not to be a WP:RS. The Bing Dynasty appears to be a blog devoted to Ms. Bing. So that's not a WP:RS either. The quote you've provided comes from The Bing Dynasty and does not attribute the quote to anyone. Does the quote also appear in some reliable source? If so, does the reliable source identify the serious critic? Whoever the serious critic is, they sure do seem enamored of Ms. Bing. Thanks for the links. David in DC (talk) 20:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I was at the Museum of Modern Art, did I see an exhibition devoted to the Bing Dynasty, featuring her staggering depth ... from some secret place within; or was it about the Ming Dynasty; Bing, Ming, can't recall.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article quality in itself is irrelevant and does not trump guidelines. she is in fact an award winning porn actress. sources verifies. covers WP:GNG. Article quality can be fixed, and size of the article is really irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 06:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rubbish. Not any "award" establishes notability. The article has no reliable sources covering this person in any depth; a single entry on a mile-long list of award nominations doesn't cut it, nor do entries in directories of user-contributed content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. The current article contains two lines of biographical information and appears to exist solely to promoted Ms Bing's web site, which I'm sure she uses for commercial purposes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent reliable sources. No encylopedic content, and unlikely every to be. Includes innuendo, and invited further. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 he fails our notability guidelines for politicians, soldiers, and does coverage of him during the 2011 airport lawsuit is not sufficient to satisfy the general notability guideline.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stanton (Politician)[edit]

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

Political candidate with no reliable third party sources indicating notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN: unelected politicians are generally not regarded as notable merely for standing as candidates but must have reliable sources independent of their candidacy. Tassedethe (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration of Mr. Stanton being a notable CANDIDATE, I submit that he is the first Libertarian senatorial candidate to participate in a state-wide primary. True, that isn't independant of his candidacy, but it is historical significant. PaulNeb86 (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So would I be correct in saying that I only need to find independent sources indicating that he's a notable candidate? --TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In general political candidates need sourcing to show notability that does not arise from their candidacy i.e. they would be notable even without standing as a candidate. Sources related to the election (candidate profiles, political reporting etc.) are not usually enough to confer notability. But there can be exceptions... Tassedethe (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stanton will be in the polls, if he performs well enough to make the Florida Senate debate would that be an acceptable exception? --TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN (and WP:POLOUTCOMES) don't suggest that making a debate would make someone automatically notable. A decision would be made on the quality of sources, and by the discussion here. Tassedethe (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. A Libertarian candidate for the US Senate w/ less than 3K votes in the party's primary isn't going to get much coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage doesn't hold a match to inclusion in the polls, and I think the simple fact that he is the first third party Senate candidate from Florida in about 100 years makes him notable, especially if he qualifies for debates. The debate criteria is 9%, and if he makes that in the first three polls I think he should stay, as it would mean he would very likely perform well in the Senate election. --TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant, in-depth, reliable third-party coverage indicating notability. Neutrality^talk 04:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An as yet unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for winning his primary, or even for getting into the debates — if you cannot demonstrate and source credible proof that they were already eligible for an article for some other reason independent of their candidacy (e.g. preexisting notability as an actor, a sports figure, a musician, a writer, a holder of a different notable office, etc.), then they have to win the election, not merely run in it, to collect notability because of the election itself. And for added bonus, this is written like a campaign brochure, not an encyclopedia article, and even incumbent officeholders don't get to keep that kind of article. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a section about Mr. Stanton's notable airport lawsuit that determined a federal law banning the distribution of the Constitution in airports and defined airports as not public. --Alec Holbeck 00:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealAlecHolbeck (talk • contribs)

Delete, not notable in military service, fails "Soldier" and at this point, not notable as a politician so fails GNG. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SOLDIER; insufficient coverage to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added several sources and tried to make the tone more neutral. Stanton was in the news in 2011 for his TSA protest and lawsuit, and again this year for running for Senate and winning the Libertarian primary. Galaxiaad (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on polling in the upper single digits in the third largest state's US Senate election, he's notable enough. The airport lawsuit was not notable, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Puppets Magic Studio[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)

Contested prod, rationale was "No indication that this may meet WP:GNG either here or in Google." Laun chba ller 16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page now has neutral, non-bias citations which gives a fair overview of the page. Removed conflicting citations and now there are reliable, neutral citations to confirm informationRumartguy (talk) 16:40 pm, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah - to unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and blogs. Read WP:RS.--Laun chba ller 16:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'unreliable sources' have now been removed (wiki and blogs) and replaced with reliable sources Rumartguy (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing the "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE" template above. None of the four references in the article mention "Puppets Magic Show".--Laun chba ller 16:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any RS. Forget notability, I could not even find RS for insignificant mentions. Lourdes 17:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added the official company information from reliable online source Rumartguy (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some official information present. Umair Aj (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new company information citation RS verifies puppets magic studio is a legal entity Rumartguy (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, terrible sourcing and an author who doesn't seem to understand WP:RS. There is one third-party RS in the whole article (Evening Standard) and it doesn't even mention the article subject - David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG in particular WP:CORPDEPTH. MarnetteD|Talk 19:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more than one third party RS, the award (TMT news website) and there is official information present as noted above.Beeproductionuk (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Beeproductionuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Further citation has been added from the portfolio of 'andrewjamesspooner.com' which independently cites puppets magic studio as creating the puppet for the music video listed and thus is an independent WP:RS Rumartguy (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a third party, but you clearly still haven't actually read WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG VViking_TalkEdits 21:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further citation added sourcing the puppets used in the television show 'tonight at the london palladium'. This evidence is backed up by the broadcast tv show itself, where 'puppets magic studio' received an on-screen credit each week Rumartguy (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Puppets Magic Studio is not even mentioned in your latest addition (and never mind it's from the tabloid Daily Star, which is not a credible source for notability) - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The official video of Format B:Chunky has been added which cites puppets magic studio as the designer of the character in its description. Rumartguy (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I request you to please first read WP:Verifiability, WP:RS and WP:ORG? The more you add unreliable & primary sources, the more time is lost of diligent editors in trying to assess the source. If you need any help in understanding how Wikipedia functions, please don't hesitate to ask, but please stop continuously adding absolutely valueless sources to the article. Please just ask for help and it will be provided (but before that, read up on the links I have suggested). Lourdes 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was nomination withdrawn due to an edit conflict. Another user was restoring the redirects at the same time as I was typing this nomination, so they're all back to redirects again anyway. I'll pursue the request for protecting the redirects through a different channel accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CBPO-FM[edit]

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

Radio stations which are not independently notable per WP:NMEDIA. In a few isolated places, such as provincial or national parks with limited or no conventional radio service, Weatheradio Canada operates transmitters on the conventional AM or FM bands so that campers or tourists don't have to buy special weatheradio receivers -- but (a) these stations are exempt from CRTC licensing as of 2007, meaning that their current operational status is unverifiable, and (b) they do not originate their own standalone programming, but simply repeat programming from a centralized parent service -- and were redirected to Weatheradio Canada accordingly. However, on several occasions now an anonymous IP has arbitrarily reverted my redirects without providing any explanation or engaging in any discussion to suggest why separate articles would be warranted. Accordingly, these need to be either deleted, or converted back to protected redirects to prevent future reversions -- I'd prefer the latter, but as I've been directly involved in the dispute I can't personally impose the latter without consensus. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 5 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Maoshan[edit]

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

Appears to be self-promotional (with the text appearing to be taken from promotional Web pages), and while I am not well-versed in this area, the person does not jump out at me as being notable. Delete unless shown otherwise. --Nlu (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable painted. Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Problem, I see with this article that it's written with highly promotional tone. There are some actual facts, that may maintain notability claim. Article mentions he has works in museum's permanent collections, which is pass per WP:ARTIST, but I couldn't find any confirmation for this online. Also, these articles in Russian [25] and [26] claim he is a vice chairman of Chinese Association of Painters, which is a quite a position. So, there may be some notability in this case, but unless we have sources that confirm it, can't pass it. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:BLP as completely lacking any reliable and independent sources. Leadership in an artists's guild, closed shop, collective, or labor union does not confer notability automatically; he's a glorified shop steward. There is zero evidence any of his work appears in any major museum or art gallery anywhere in the Western world, that is, the purported subject of his art! (No, Russia, is not part of the West as far as that genre of art is concerned.) Bearian (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Céleste[edit]

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

No indication of meeting notability guidelines as per WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of references. Rizhopper (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 14:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing on Google/Google News to suggest news coverage and nothing in the article appears to pass the MUSICBIO threshold. A Train^talk 15:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has released through a major record label as California Records is part of Sony Music so has a claim to pass WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) agree that more references are needed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on @Atlantic306:'s argument: WP:NMUSIC says "has released two or more albums on a major record label" -- it seems like Mr Celeste has released one album on California Records, and said label doesn't appear to be part of Sony Music. In fact, the label doesn't seem to turn up on Google at all. What am I missing here? A Train^talk 16:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Apologies for wrong spelling as it is Calitonia records, will check its part of Sony Music later Atlantic306 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306: I haven't checked properly, but I think there might be some sleight-of-hand in that statement – I think it might refer to Céleste releasing his videos through VEVO, which is owned by Sony. Richard3120 (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you may be right as am not finding anything about Catilonia records, have emailed sonymusic uk asking them about Catilonia and whether Celeste is one of Sony's artists Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply put, the article lacks references to back up any claim. Re: the Keep vote: Although awaiting user Atlantic306 research, my hunch is that the little-known Catalonia Record’s connection to Sony is that they are a customer of Sony’s digitial distribution services, rather than being an actual part of Sony Music. I think all of us who have spent time on musician related AfD have come across pages that feature an independent label under a larger label’s umbrella and mistake that for some kind or noteworthy connection only to discover the small label pays the larger label for a service, and in doing so claims “to be part of …(fill in the blank).” I could be wrong in this instance, but even so the 2 release criteria for WP:NMUSIC has yet to be met. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nowiny Kryszkowskie[edit]

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

Places defined solely for the purpose of taking a census are not notable per WP:GEOLAND Tylr00 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that this is a place defined solely for the purpose of taking a census? It appears on maps, as can be seen by clicking on the coordinates and following through, and maps have nothing to do with censuses. 14:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.222.157 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". No reason to believe that the place is defined solely for the purpose of taking a census. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:GEOLAND. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly satisfies it. Smartyllama (talk) 14:59, 8 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. Consensus is that the material should be kept. Discussions for mergers can be done on a relevant talk page.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wand of Orcus[edit]

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

This is almost an entirely in-universe article about a topic that fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep one of the clearly notable elements unique to D&D, it is mentioned in the 'For Dummies' book [27], and is even cited as an example in a U.S. Patent from a non-TSR/Wizards gaming entity [28]. Still working on more under alternative names. Note that these sources are in addition to the hundreds of times this item is mentioned in TSR/Wizards game material itself. Jclemens (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both are utterly trivial singular name-drops without any further context. How would you even expect to work those into an article? It's not just criteria of "the topic is mentioned in reliable sources" that has to be fulfilled. It's "the topic has significant coverage in reliable sources." TTN (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, for a purely fictional element of a game, any mention is evidence of significant real-world impact. The significant coverage is in insufficiently-independent RS'es, such as other derivative primary sources (e.g., Novels). Jclemens (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what exactly supports that view? You have no reasonable means of using either of those sources in the article without them being irrelevant fluff to bolster sources. The sentence "The Wand of Orcus is mentioned in Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition For Dummies." is trivial, same with the other. There is no context to their usage in the sources, so it has no place in the article. You'd have a case for using the first one in Orcus' article because it at least has the context of citing it as an extremely memorable character and the "most monstrous evil." It's still a pretty bad source if that's the only thing the article can have going for it, but it's something. TTN (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are a ton of primary and self-published sources out there that are useful for improving the article, but not for establishing notability of the topic in the first place. I can bring up a ton of them if you want, but I don't see how that will help a policy-driven discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Further sources including the wand being a separately described component of some miniatures (some are separate, non-TSR/WotC products) of the fictional demon lord [29], [30]. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability exceeds merging to any one article. bd2412 T 19:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons). I respectfully disagree with Jclemens's assessment that "for a purely fictional element of a game, any mention is evidence of significant real-world impact". The mentions listed above do not meet the definition of non-trivial which is part of the general notability guideline, and I am unsure why we should hold fictional items to a lower standard. These mentions are good evidence that the Wand warrants a mention on Wikipedia, and we have Orcus (Dungeons & Dragons), List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons, and the likes of The Throne of Bloodstone for that. I do not understand BD2412's claims, and neither of the other users who supported keeping the article provided an argument. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean that in the greater fictional universe of Dungeons & Dragons, the Wand of Orcus is occasionally used by characters other than Orcus, and discussion of it therefore includes material that is arguably beyond the scope of the Orcus article. Also, the material on the item is substantial enough that it would make the Orcus article bloated to merge it all in. bd2412 T 20:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do not disagree with you, but what you say doesn't say much in favour of keeping the article. Merging this content to the article on Orcus (or a list) does not preclude mention of the Wand elsewhere, and if there's too much here for the article on Orcus, perhaps some of it should be trimmed. In any case, none of what you say deals with the main issue here, which is the apparent lack of significant coverage in third-party sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Everything in the article is sourced and relevant to the topic. Trimming, therefore, would mean removing accurate, sourced information from the encyclopedia purely for the expedience of saving space in the target article. Dividing up the article between multiple other articles would mean that readers interested in this topic specifically (over 500 in the last month) would need to hop across multiple pages and search for mentions on them in order to get the complete picture. What would you "trim" from this article to make it fit neatly into the existing Orcus article? bd2412 T 04:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - That works under the assumption that all of the content is necessary to understand the topic. With articles on fiction, there needs to be a certain amount of weight put towards the plot summaries in the articles, else you end up with one hundred paragraphs on plot alone. It needs to be properly balanced with the real world information in the article to provide proper context without going overboard. As there is no real world information in this article, you can easily remove most of the content in this article while keeping the core concepts understandable. TTN (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I broadly agree. I could write pages and pages about fictional characters in universes I care about all sourced to primary material; the fact that there's too much to comfortably merge elsewhere would not be a good argument against merging the article elsewhere if the topic did not an article of its own. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Prickett[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER, nor does he seem to have WP:SIGCOV; the sources seem to point to trivia or one-off items rather than anything that would truly assert notability. MSJapan (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject lacks significant coverage per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - one !vote not really enough. Nordic Nightfury 13:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 13:05, 5 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. Sandstein 18:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Joli[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:PORNBIO as only nominations are listed. Sufficient RS coverage is not available to meet WP:GNG. Subject's various appearances are minor and do not meet WP:NACTOR. Previous AfD in January of 2015 closed as "keep" but i found arguments presented to be not in line with Wiki's notability guidelines. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sufficient secondary source coverage to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. WP:PORNBIO is presently in a state of flux according to the talk page, though the unfortunate wording requiring not merely being nominated but actually winning an award seems silly. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she has won no awards but she has converted to mainstream media (film and theatre) appearances and if properly sourced thus passes both the WP:GNG as WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. -- fdewaele, 29 August 2016, 18:39 CET.
Keep. Joli fails every applicable SNG, but the cumulative effect of the admittedly minor coverage in multiple discrete fields is enough to satisfy the GNG, barely. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Barely scrapes through WP:GNG but she has had roles in film. Article needs better copy too. 80.249.56.149 (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I'm not seeing how the article meets GNG. Here's the section on non-adult entertainment ventures:

Examination of sources in "Mainstream" sections

Extended content

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

Joli has appeared twice on The Howard Stern Show^[1] and three times on The Opie and Anthony Show.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Joli also captured in Edouard Salier's short movie, "Flesh" which describes the life and death of Manhattan during a fictional 9/11.^{[citation needed]} She also appeared (along with porn stars Charlotte Stokely, Charmane Star, Erika Vution, and Stacey Adams) in the blaxploitation spoof Black Dynamite.^[4] She stars on the 2010 Nerdcore Horror Calendar.

In 2009 Joli played supporting role in the softcore television series Life on Top.

Joli was cast in the role of Caligula's wife, Caesonia, in the Off Broadway theatre production Caligula Maximus, scheduled to run at New York's Ellen Stewart Theatre in March–April 2010. She garnered the role after working as a burlesque dancer at a New York performance venue run by Randy Weiner, the play's co-producer and co-writer.^[5]

As of 2014^[update], Joli is the owner and operator of a medical marijuana business called Green Fairy Edibles which produces infused beef jerky. She stated in an April 2015 article that she supplies as much as 1,000 ounces of jerky to marijuana dispensaries a month.^[6]

Joli is a self described geek with a love of anime, science fiction, Macs, Camping and cartoons. She is also into nude sports, such as naked bungee jumping and naked whitewater rafting.^[7]^[8] She was romantically involved with porn director D. Cypher for several years.^[7]^[9]

References

^ ^a ^b Lainie Speiser, Confessions of the Hundred Hottest Porn Stars, Quiver, 2011, pp. 204–205. ISBN 1592334776
^ "Opie and Anthony Headlines". foundrymusic.com. Retrieved 2007-08-18.
^ "Opie and Anthony Headlines". foundrymusic.com. Retrieved 2007-12-12.
^ Black Dynamite – Ladies of Leisure
^ Peter Warren (2010-02-18). "Justine Joli Cast in Off-Broadway Take on Caligula". AVN.com. Retrieved 2010-02-19.
^ AVN
^ ^a ^b "Justine Joli: The Naked Nerd!", Porn Star Interviews (podcast), September 5, 2007. (page links to MP3 audio file)
^ "Autobiographical sketch". Official website. Archived from the original on 2006-03-07. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
^ "Hot Sex With a Porn Director" by Rachel Kramer Bussel, Village Voice, March 9, 2006.

These are minor appearances -- Howard Stern show, Black Dynamite, etc. Life on Top mention is uncited. Her role in Caligula is cited to AVN; "Other ventures" section (dispensary business). Personal life section is cited to Ms Jolie's web site and blog.adultdvdtalk.com. D Cypher relationship is cited to Village Voice, which is a free weekly and is not a suitable source for BLPs. If these sources were presented at an AfD outside of the adult entertainment industry, I assume they would be rejected as non RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NOTE: I've recently, heavily-edited the article under consideration here since the above posting. There are still a few dead links that will likely be fixed soon (when the automated bot that usually senses & changes those kind of links gets around to this article).

FWIW, the previous AfD on this subject was unfortunately started as part of a pointy, mass-AfD crusade by an editor that left Wikipedia a while back when their favorite article was deleted. Guy1890 (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has received enough coverage to pass the GNG. And how is The Village Voice not a reliable source? It has received many journalism awards, including ones for Investigative Reporting. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Examination of sources in revised "Mainstream" sections

Joli has appeared twice on The Howard Stern Show^[1] and three times on The Opie and Anthony Show.^[1]^[2]

Joli is also captured in Edouard Salier's short movie Flesh, which describes the life and death of Manhattan during a fictional 9/11.^{[citation needed]} She also appeared (along with adult film stars Charlotte Stokely, Charmane Star, Erika Vution, and Stacey Adams) in the blaxploitation spoof Black Dynamite.^[3]^[4] She starred in the 2010 Nerdcore Horror Calendar.^{[citation needed]}

From 2009-11, Joli played supporting role in the softcore television series Life on Top.^[5]

Joli was cast in the role of Caligula's wife, Caesonia, in the Off Broadway theatre production Caligula Maximus, which was scheduled to run at New York's Ellen Stewart Theatre in March–April 2010.^[6] She garnered the role after working as a burlesque dancer at a New York performance venue (The Box) run by Randy Weiner, the play's co-producer and co-writer.^[6]

As of 2014^[update], Joli was the owner and operator of a medical marijuana business called Green Fairy Edibles which produced cannabis-infused beef jerky.^[7] She stated in an April 2015 AVN article that she supplies as much as 1,000 ounces of jerky to marijuana dispensaries a month.^[7]

Joli is a self described geek with a love of anime, science fiction, Macs, and cartoons.^[8] She is also into nude sports, such as naked bungee jumping and naked whitewater rafting.^[8]^[8]^[9] She was romantically involved with adult film director D. Cypher for several years.^[9]^[10]

References

^ ^a ^b Lainie Speiser (1 June 2011). Confessions of the Hundred Hottest Porn Stars. Fair Winds Press. pp. 204–205. ISBN 978-1-59233-477-3. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
^ "Opie and Anthony Headlines". foundrymusic.com. Retrieved 2007-08-18.^{[dead link]}
^ "Black Dynamite". IMDb. 13 January 2010. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
^ "Ladies of Leisure". 2011. Archived from the original on 20 December 2008. Retrieved 2 September 2016.
^ "Life on Top". IMDb. 3 October 2009. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
^ ^a ^b Peter Warren. "Justine Joli Cast in Off-Broadway Take on Caligula". AVN. Retrieved 3 September 2016.
^ ^a ^b Kernes, Mark (April 17, 2015). "CNBC Discovers the Connection Between Porn and Pot". Adult Video News. Retrieved 17 April 2015.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Autobiographical sketch". Official website. Archived from the original on 2006-03-07. Retrieved 2007-05-26.
^ ^a ^b Justine Joli (September 5, 2007). "JUSTINE JOLI: The Naked Nerd!" (podcast). Retrieved 2 September 2016. {{cite interview}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |city= (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)
^ "Hot Sex With a Porn Director" by Rachel Kramer Bussel, Village Voice, March 9, 2006^{[dead link]}

I've looked at the revised section, and it's still unconvincing:

There are several appearances at shows, but this tells us nothing about the subject.
Black Dynamite appearance is cited to IMDB and Blackdynamite.com (both primary sources).
Life on Top is cited to IMDB.
Appearance in Caligula is cited to AVN and Ms Jolie's web site.
Medical marijua venture is cited to AVN
Her personal life is cited to her web site and a dead link

I don't see "significant coverage from reliable sources" here. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 13:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meet WP:GNG. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per all the above keep reasons. Pwolit iets (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment -- I still don't see how the subject has met GNG by "receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources in the article are not even close to enough to develop a reliable, balanced biography of a living person. No new sources have been presented at the AfD either. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 12 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 Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:07, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laogzed[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities. BOZ (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Troglodyte (Dungeons & Dragons) is another possible target. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:07, 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 keep. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward B. Giller[edit]

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

Seems to just miss WP:SOLDIER (awards and rank are too low), and there's nothing particularly distinguishing in the article that jumps out. His association with Project Orion appears to be indirect. MSJapan (talk) 02:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SOLDIER specifically says that general officers are considered notable. As a major general he clearly qualifies. Not sure why you'd think he doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline gave me the impression that one had to be a 3-star. MSJapan (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't understand how. "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents." No mention of three stars there. One star is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still need the requisite coverage in the reliable sources though. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is presumed that individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if they..."--Savonneux (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But one can presume and be wrong. A "presumption" is not a "fact." Case in point; the answer to "Dr. Livingston, I presume" could have been "No, he's over there." I could presume someone is notable, and then not find a single source on them. The presumption means nothing if it's not borne out in fact when checked. MSJapan (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My personal perception of the rules is that presumption overrides actuality. Based on the mass porn-star deletions last year where WP:PORNBIO was taken as the "law" (as it were) for pornographic bios over WP:ANYBIO. I just apply, I don't interpret.--Savonneux (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet WP:SOLDIER (the essay you quote) explicitly states: "ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources." So in the end it defers to WP:GNG (i.e. policy). At any rate how can a presumption ever override reality? If one presumes something to be true but it is later proven to be wrong, why would a reasonable person continue to hold the presumption of the opposite? Sure hold on to ones presumptions until proven otherwise, I get that, but not after. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Soldier. I don't know why the actuality of his existence and rank is disputed seeing as the official US Air force website has a bio on him. Indy beetle (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not about "existence" or "rank" - the "actuality of his existence" isn't the question, and as you should be aware, existence is not notability. What's at question is doing something of note. In short, read the entirety of the policy first. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said "existence and rank." I know existence isn't the same as notability. I meant to answer GraemeLeggett's comment that we would "need the requisite coverage in the reliable sources." I was asserting that this guy's legitimacy of rank is supported by the US Air Force's official website. And I would argue it is very much "about" his rank, as per WP:SOLDIER #2. Granted, that is an essay, and not policy. So it really depends on whether we in this discussion want to follow the limited consensus behind the points put forth in the essay or the more widely accepted and broad Wikipedia:Notability policy.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable per WP:SOLDIER - I personally think that the criteria should be adjusted to include only 3-stars and above as being "automatically" notable, but until that changes, this article is a keep. ArchieOof (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as "automatic notability" regardless of rank, and WP:SOLDIER certainly does not claim that there is. It uses "presume" which of course requires one to check on a case by case basis as to whether the presumption holds correct for the subject in question. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My comments above aside I'm on the fence about this individual's notability, and will need to look further at the sources available as there does appear to be some coverage, but I'm not sure I can determine whether it constitutes WP:SIGCOV with out going through it in more depth. Ultimately my main concern here is that the keep arguments seem to be misapplying the substance of an essay (i.e. WP:SOLDIER) which contrary to the arguments above does not create "inherent" or "automatic" notability for anyone (regardless of rank, award or deed), but merely lists topics that are presumed to have significant coverage as req'd by our extant notability guidelines (but obviously would not be notable if that presumption were proven not to apply). Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - consensus says keep but to be sure... Nordic Nightfury 13:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 13:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SOLDIER. Major general is "too low" a rank? Oy vey. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 6 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adora Cheung[edit]

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

Many references, but all of them are essentially press releases or local stories for non notable founder of a failed company. DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article in its current state is sourced with press releases, a Google search turns up this Forbes article, a Vanity Fair article, a Tech Crunch article, an article in the San Jose news, and an interview in the Huffington Post. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Washington Post. I've added references to the article, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: You have also argued for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allard_Hall saying: No significant nonlocal third party coverage when the article in question had refs such as the Globe and Mail and the Financial Post. You continued to defend your position saying that It is the job of good PR people to convince such newspapers to create such articles. Are you also saying that the Washington Post and other wp:RSes were simply coerced by PR people to publish an article about Adora Cheung? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

not coerced, persuaded. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still only PR and none of it actually substantiates her own convincing substance. This AfD as noticeably become too political when we should be analyzing this for actual substance, not whether this or that should or should not be said. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Assertions of "PR" should be backed up with objective evidence for such claims, rather than proof by assertion alone. The articles provided above are bylined news articles written by staff writers that have been published in independent, reliable sources. These are not press releases, as evidenced in part by utilizing Google searches using the titles of these article, in which links are only present for these articles themselves, as opposed to press releases, which typically have the same article hosted on many various websites. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- TOOSOON. The coverage is all PR like or tangential, with trivial mentions. For example:

Forbes -- an article about a new venture of the brother of the subject, who is only mentioned in passing
Vanity Fair article -- retelling of a blog post by the subject, not a suitable source for a bio article
Tech Crunch -- interview with the subject about the company
San Jose News -- interview with the subject about the company (i.e. adds to company notability, not the subject's)
Washington post -- article about the company, with the subject mentioned in passing.
Etc.

The company may be notable, but its former CEO does not appear to be independently notable. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the individual has adequate indicia of notability, the coverage by major news outlets clearly meets GNG. If anything, the company could be merged into this biography, frankly. Montanabw^(talk) 22:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Homejoy Excellent analysis by K.e.coffman. This is a BIO1E. The coverage of the individual is solely in the context of the company and notability cannot be inherited from the company itself. (Also note that she was the co-founder along with her brother - should we also have an article for her brother as well then?) The company is no doubt notable, but that doesn't make the founders automatically notable. Till, that time the information about the founder needs to be covered in the article about the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors also need to understand that GNG is not an automatic free pass to an article. GNG is subject to WP:NOT (which is a policy) as well as other guidelines like the single event guidelines. We tend to cover founders of notable companies in the company article unless it can be demonstrated that the individual is notable independent of the company. (As a sidenote, many of the sources are interviews which are primary sources not useful for notability.) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is also a policy. In this case, to say that the company is more notable than its founder or a CEO is circular reasoning; I see no "policy" that says that a company's founder is only notable in the context of their company ... if anything, it should be the other way around! Montanabw^(talk) 23:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline. WP:NOT is a policy. The fact whether a company is notable or the founder is notable can be seen from the nature of the sources. Over here, the sources talk mostly about the company with a small mention about the founders. Sometimes, the founders are quoted in the articles. This happens all the time with founders of every small company. If we start keeping articles on this basis, we will become a directory of business-people (which goes against WP:NOTDIR). Which is why we have WP:BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE as well WP:NOTINHERITED to apply along with GNG. The sources show that the company is notable, not the founder. This has been applied across multiple articles on multiple business-people. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't BIO1E... there's coverage for her after HomeJoy. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me some of the significant coverage apart from Homejoy? I don't see any. Simply being quoted is not significant coverage. Reliable secondary sources are needed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aggregate of the sources seems to pass GNG to me. In terms of what's already been discussed: the TechCrunch and Vanity Fair pieces are entirely devoted to her work, I see no reason why they wouldn't be relevant to a biography; the WaPo piece has several paragraphs on her work so it counts for something; the preface to the Mercury News interview is secondary source material and thus goes toward to notability. Then for some more sources: here is a Business Insider piece in which she's featured, a Recode piece, Forbes write-up and further commentary on the Recode piece, etc. Article's shortcomings seem editorial to me, rather than shortcomings in available sourcing or that any exclusion criteria apply. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not the only reason. We also look at WP:BIO1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. The nature of the references show whether we should have a page. I'm also unable to understand your sources

Business Insider piece Trivial mention. The only mention of Cheung is a single line caption below a photo. There is literally no mention in the article. (I also don't understand why do you say she is "featured").
Recode piece, Forbes piece Literally deal with how the company failed. It has a few quotes by Cheung but nothing else.

Notability also cannot be inherited from a company. Over here it is clear that the company is the focus of the article. And the subject at best deserves a section on that article, but definitely not a standalone article. You can also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Business_people_and_executives. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still more sources, on her more recent enterprises:

She has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources for multiple endeavors. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness (+potential additions to the article) here's what else I've found so far that hasn't been mentioned at AfD yet.

Cheung siblings named to Forbes 30 Under 30 list in 2012
TechCrunch write-up of significance of Y Combinator alums on 30U30 list, including Cheungs
Chicago Herald piece on her personal relationship with her brother on how it relates to their work
Among those profiled for this Associated Press piece via Chicago Daily Herald
A different FastCo piece from the one cited above

Innisfree987 (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sources Unfortunately, this is a still a WP:BIO1E.

Fortune,Gizmodo, Wired, FastCo, A different TechCrunch piece - Every single one of these sources simply mention Cheung in the context that she announced stuff. Note that none of these sources are significant coverage. The other sources you pasted after that are all about Homejoy again, making it a BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC) Another important thing to keep in mind is that startups are usually in news and getting an article "up" on Techcrunch/Gizmodo/Wired/Forbes is not a big deal. What needs to be seen is the subject is independently notable - that is someone has decided to cover the subject without focusing on the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"What needs to be seen is...someone has decided to cover the subject without focusing on the company." 1, We do have commentary on endeavors beyond the company (unlike for the Payal Kadakia example below, where it was all about ClassPass, here we have additional sources on Cheung being on the board at Y Combinator and the cities project) so I don't agree with the 1E reading, and 2, if I understand correctly that the suggestion is we require coverage of a person that doesn't dwell on their work, I disagree. We would never say coverage of an author wouldn't count unless it wasn't in reference to the books they wrote; if anything a source that set aside their work and purely discussed their personal life might well be considered too tabloid-y to count toward notability. I'm going to be plain, I'm troubled by the suggestion work a woman did is somehow not relevant to her notability--and not because I think it's Wikipedia's job to make women look good, in fact I think including this coverage will not necessarily be flattering, as a good chunk of it holds up her work as an example of a controversial deregulatory trend in U.S. political economy.

What Wikipedia does have to do is apply its own rules evenly. In terms of how such cases are commonly handled, you might be interested in how the Julio Cabral-Corrada AfD went this week--another young person in the U.S. related to business and political questions, but that entry had much less sourcing than this one does, and closed as no consensus. I don't believe it's accurate to say cases like this are "usually deleted". Innisfree987 (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG. Article could use cleanup, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:BIO1E. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have stated your opinion multiple times here - like you have done in various AFD's about women subjects. See also WP:BLUDGEON, WP:DISRUPT. Hmlarson (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is supposed to be for discussion so I don't understand your refusal to discuss. Neither do I understand what you mean by "various AFD's about women subjects"; I vote on multiple AfDs about different topics and I apply the same standards everywhere. That actually helps to understand notability better. I see that you have been exclusively voting on AfDs about women, may I invite you to try voting on other AfDs as well? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. See also mansplain. Hmlarson (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm sorry but I don't understand what you are trying to say or imply. Would you mind explaining? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm fine with a merge as well to Homejoy per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Business_people_and_executives. But I don't think this deserves an independent article. Previous articles of the same type have been merged Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Payal Kadakia or usually deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is appropriate to have a very brief merge and redirect as suggested, but not an independent article. The sort of duplicate coverage shown here is purely promotional and does not justify a separate article. Expecting individual coverage in cases likethis amounts to changing wikipedia from an encyclopedia into not just a who's who, but Who's Who among Young People. It's a violation not primarily of BLP1E, but of the fundamental policies in WP:NOT. Hmlarson, I can't act as I normally would as an admin because I am involved in the discussion, but your comments to Lemongirl are violation of our equally fundamental policy, l No Personal Attacks. . DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Alsever, Jennifer (November 2014). "How to Run a Successful Sibling Startup". Inc. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Adora Cheung had tried starting companies with co-founders before. But it wasn't until 2012, while working on her laptop in her brother's filthy apartment, that Cheung both hit on a great startup idea--Homejoy, an online service that helps users locate a housecleaner--and found her ideal partner, her brother Aaron. Today, the pair jointly run Homejoy, which operates in over 30 markets and has more than 200 employees and $40 million in funding.
  ...
  Why have the Cheungs succeeded when so many sibling co-founders fail?
  Adora says it's because they are both introverts who grew up in a goal-oriented, studious family. They rarely get frazzled under stress, and each can be blunt without the other's taking offense. "You inherently trust your sibling more than anyone else in the world," Adora says. "You know you have each other's back."
2. Arbel, Tali (2014-01-08). "How to get ahead in business with a short resume". The Business Journal. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Homejoy
  FOUNDERS: Adora Cheung, 30, and her brother Aaron Cheung, 25
  STARTED IN: Mountain View, Calif., July 2012
  THE BUSINESS: Now based in San Francisco, Homejoy's website connects more than 100,000 house cleaners with customers in about 30 cities in the U.S. and Canada
  MONEY RAISED: $40 million
  BIG BACKER: Max Levchin, co-founder of PayPal
  Coming out of the University of Rochester, which had no entrepreneurial community that she was aware of, Adora Cheung wanted to learn how startups work. She joined a Bay Area company, Slide, which was started by PayPal co-founder Max Levchin.
  ...
  — FOLLOWING FRIENDS: After Cheung left Slide, she and her brother spent three-and-a-half years trying to come up with a business. They participated in the Y Combinator accelerator program, which helps startups launch. Friends who had been through the program recommended it.
3. Hull, Dana (2013-12-04). "Housecleaning startup Homejoy raises $38 million". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Homejoy, a housecleaning startup launched last year in San Francisco, is set to announce Thursday it has raised $38 million in venture funding from Google (GOOG) Ventures, Redpoint Ventures and angel investor Max Levchin.
  The company was founded by Adora and Aaron Cheung, siblings who created an online platform that connects house cleaners who need steady work to clients eager for an easy way to get their houses and apartments cleaned.
  ...
  Cheung, 30, became a housecleaner for a month to learn about the industry. She said that several investors in Silicon Valley have used Homejoy and began to approach the company about raising capital.
4. Walker, Alissa (2016-06-27). "Now Y Combinator Wants to Build a City Because Every Other Tech Company Is Doing It". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  In an announcement today, Y Combinator partner Adora Cheung (who joined the famous seed-funder four weeks ago) writes that our present cities “don’t provide the opportunities and living conditions necessary for success.” Cheung goes on to highlight specific failures the project hopes to address in the areas of affordable housing and transportation.
5. Rhodes, Margaret (2016-07-08). "Y Combinator's Plan to Build a New City? Not Actually Crazy". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-09-19. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  Last week, Y Combinator, the Silicon Valley startup accelerator that helped launch companies like Dropbox and Airbnb, announced it was launching an ambitious project of its own. The “New Cities” initiative will study freshly minted cities, and how to plan, design, and build them from scratch.
  To many, the announcement registered as audacious, even for Silicon Valley. The language surrounding the announcement sounds like it’s lifted from a half-baked VC pitch deck (“You can fix existing cities, which a lot of people are doing, or you can reimagine them from a blank state,” says Adora Cheung, who will head up the project with Y Combinator president Sam Altman) and details about the project’s curriculum are scant (Cheung says “it’s all TBD”).
6. Bonanos, Paul (2014-05-23). "Homejoy: Cleaning up the mobile competition". San Francisco Business Journal. Retrieved 2016-09-19.
  The article notes:
  
  When Homejoy co-founder and CEO Adora Cheung began exploring new ways technology could improve on traditional house-cleaning services, she took matters into her own hands, literally: She joined one of them and started scrubbing.
  “I worked at a service for a little bit to pick up some skills and learn how old-school companies work,” Cheung said. “It took them hours to juggle a schedule,” she explained. “I thought, ‘I could make this happen in less than one second, with code.’”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Adora Cheung to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E are applicable. Founding and running a company is not "one event". Cunard (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis - Every single source listed there is essentially either a business profile or a press release-laced "news"; there has been considerable consensus that the Business Journals, such as the last one listed here, can not be used at all for notability, let alone actually NPOV non-PR uses, because they are essentially always simply interviews, puffery about the person and their companies. Owning and operating one's own company is not by itself a suggestion of actual independent notability at all, as we would need said non-PR coverage of course. The sources above even include unacceptable things, take the first paragraph of the Business Journals for example,
When Homejoy co-founder and CEO Adora Cheung began exploring new ways technology could improve on traditional house-cleaning services, she took matters into her own hands, literally: She joined one of them and started scrubbing.
“I worked at a service for a little bit to pick up some skills and learn how old-school companies work,” Cheung said. “It took them hours to juggle a schedule,” she explained. “I thought, ‘I could make this happen in less than one second, with code.’”
No actual working-jourbalist should mention this, and of course they would not, because a Business Journal "employee" is simply involving themselves with PR and fluffing their interview. It even goes to talk about how she operates her company, as if this was a job listing-like interview, which essentially there also been consensus that the Business Journals is used for funding and financing seeking opportunities. One of the articles even states the company is "ambitious", this basically translates as not being notable if they still need to motivate "ambitions". The article even goes to state how she "was working with housecleaning for a month", none of that would be meaningful for a genuine news article, and it obviously is supported and supplied by Adora Cheung herself; it states by itself that anything about this would not be acceptable, the fact it's listed as it is shows there must have essentially been nothing else meaningful for the "news". There are claims from the Keep votes that GNG is somehow met yet they are not actually supplying their analysis or otherwise comments about this, and they have not met anywhere to somehow acknowledge the said PR concerns; therefore there's nothing to suggest these Keep votes can be taken thoroughly or seriously. If that's honestly the best coverage that can be listed, that's explaining enough. Even my comment earlier stated this clearly and exactly. SwisterTwister talk 01:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Cunard. I don't find the arguments for WP:BLP1E compelling. Coverage about Cheung typically relates to her company, but that's not coverage for one event, but for a career and a business. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is rather thin considering users have stated exactly the concerns here, yet the comment sinply states "per other user, [for career and a business].". SwisterTwister talk 01:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply saying that Cunard did a very thorough analysis here, and I agree with that user. I can say that without echoing all of that user's comments. Writing "per X user" is a frequent practice at AFD and elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's a way of signaling agreement with another user's comments without having to restate them all Ad infinitum. Safehaven86 (talk) 01:16, 20 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. Obviously this does not prevent anyone from creating a revised version of the article in future provided they address the concerns about lack of coverage in third party reliable sources and promotional wording. Hut 8.5 22:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leadwerks Engine[edit]

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

No evidence of third-party notability since creation; most references are primary; heavily promotional in tone (was created before the software was even released). PROD was removed, but article hasn't improved in the years since. David Gerard (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not see any reliable sources in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TNT the article and add the first four hits from a video game reliable sources custom Google search. czar 05:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There needs to be third party coverage to see if the software is notable. I don't find any in this case. This is especially surprising considering that software related topics are quite easy to source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:59, 13 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Code Name Project Orion (film)[edit]

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

Unsourced NN TV episode. I think this is more correctly an episode of History Undercover and the rest is the subtitle, but we don't have an article on the show, and there no assertion as to why this particular episode is deserving of an article. MSJapan (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INFO and WP:PROMO. No other purpose for this article to exist. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question I could've sworn I've already participated in an Afd about this film, or a similar one on the very same topic, not too long ago. I can't find it in my history however. This ring a bell for anyone else? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To Mars By A-Bomb (film). K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still going! Okay, thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:57, 5 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I. P. Gautam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non Notable Civil Servant. An office in the civil service is not inherently notable unless it can be shown that the subject has done something to distinguish themselves. Merely being the Municipal Commissioner of a city does not indicate any notability. He is not an elected official like a mayor. More importantly, the sources have to specifically be about the person. It would be easy to find google hits when the subject has a common name and often announces government decisions. But notability needs to be shown independently of these routine news. As far as I could see, I did not see anything to distinguish the subject from a run of the mill civil servant. The coverage has been more about stuff related to his office than actually about him. Uncletomwood (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question How much like a mayor is a municipal comissioner. If they are basically like a mayor I think Gautam is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, there is the post of Mayor which exists in the Municipal Corporation who is the head. A Municipal Commissioner is like the Principal Manager of the Corporation. He's a bureaucrat and not an elected representative. Uncletomwood (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only "reference" is a dead link. Nothing suggests notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- yet another vanity page on an unremarkable low-level bureaucrat. No claim of notability as the subject does not meet WP:NPOL. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject has a lot of media coverage. I think if a subject is regularly getting mentioned in main stream media, that says the person is notable. Here are few independent articles about the subject - [31], [32]. The two article from Daily News and Analysis and The Times of India has I. P. Gautam as the main subject apart from hundreds of articles that have mentioned him [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Pratyush 09:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushSinha101 (talk • contribs)

Most are just quoting the subject peripherally and are not about the subject. The other references are relatively minor and not significant enough to show notability.--Rpclod (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In 1st and 2nd link, the whole article is about the subject. How much more such articles are required to show notability? And most of the links have direct relation to the subject like the metro project related link have given him due importance as he is the head of the project. References given are from the leading media houses of India. And as I said earlier, hundreds of similar links are available, if more are required to prove notability. I can add more. You don't get mentioned over 100 times in leading media houses of the country unless you are notable.

Pratyush 11:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushSinha101 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Nordic Nightfury 12:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 21:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fish School Search[edit]

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

Yet more nature-inspired metaheuristic cruft. Created August 10th by a SPA with an apparent COI. ~~Conveniently forgets to mention that this algorithm has been criticized for being the particle swarm optimization algorithm under a different name.~~ —Ruud 12:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(The source I had criticizing this to be equivalent to PSO actually refered to another "fish swarm" metaheuristic. My objections to this article still stand. Statements like "success is represented as weight of each fish" used by Amorim Neto below are exactly the kind of language that e.g. the Journal of Heuristics denounces with "implementations should be explained by employing standard optimization terminology, where a solution is called a 'solution' and not something else related to some obscure metaphor." Independent, high-quality sources are still absent.) —Ruud 16:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Arim Neto and Joaomonteirof, who voted below, are also the authors of the papers this article is based on (and may thus have a slight COI here). —Ruud 12:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not true, I am under-graduate student and did not write any paper on FSS. I suggest you start reading the papers and based yourself on facts before exposing opinions. There is no COI. Perhaps the misunderstanding is because of "Neto", which is not a family name, it means grandson. Hugo Amorim Neto (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Fish School Search is an original population based metaheuristic search algorithm first proposed in ^[1].

This family of algorithms, comprised of dozens of versions and variations, uses a totally different search mechanism when compared to PSO. For example, success is represented as weight of each fish (there is no concept of velocity) and change in the total weight of the School. Notice that 'school' is the collective of fish as some people do not know that other meaning for this word. FSS does not use any kind of positional memory (l-,g-best, for example). Very important to notice that FSS does not require any topological knowledge at all, which is absolutely necessary for PSO to be used (i.e. there is connectivity pattern required in FSS). FSS can automatically switch between exploration and exploitation modes, which is something not existing in PSO. Incidentally, this particular FSS operator (catering for automatic search strategy) was included and tested into PSO and produced a much more effective algorithm ^[2]. To conclude, I would like to point out that FSS has now multimodal, multi-objective, binary, parallel etc versions which grant to the FSS family the righteous status of an established role in the big family of Swarm Intelligence SI techniques.

We suggest that further and careful read be pursued in the references so as the above pointed out differences (there are more interesting ones) clearly set FSS apart, as an original brand new family of algorithms with SI. Therefore, it is rather unfair to cast FSS as a copy of anything in literature.Hugo Amorim Neto (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — Hugo Amorim Neto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ C. J. A. B Filho., F. B. de Lima Neto, A. J. C. C.. Lins, A. I. S. Nascimento., and M. P. Lima, "A novel search algorithm based on fish school behavior," Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC 2008. IEEE International Conference on, 2008, pp. 2646-2651.(DOI = 10.1109/ICSMC.2008.4811695)
^ G. M. CAVALCANTI JÚNIOR ; BUARQUE DE LIMA NETO, F. ; Carmelo J. A. Bastos-Filho . On the Analysis of HPSO Improvement by Use of the Volitive Operator of Fish School Search (QUALIS S/C). International Journal of Swarm Intelligence Research, v. 4, p. 62-77, 2013. (DOI => http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jsir.2013010103)

Keep

FSS utilizes totally different search mechanisms when compared to PSO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaomonteirof (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC) — Joaomonteirof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think we should keep these metaheuristics articles until the scientific argument is truly settled. It is quite easy to wait several years before the community decides that that these optimization algo's are not subsets of the PSO. I know it's a niche community, particularly related to limited sources pool, but it is good enough at the moment for WP. If it doesn't work out, they can be very easily removed, in say, 5 years, when it is fully settled. Scope creep (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is another of the Swarm intelligence algorithms, isn't it? The original paper seems to have 65 citations (which is quite low considering the field) and I don't know how many are self citations. Unlike the Ant and Bee Colony optimisation algos, this one was proposed in 2008 but doesn't seem to have caught on. I am leaning towards a delete as I am unable to find that the idea is a groundbreaking one which deserves a Wikipedia article at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sums up the situation pretty well, yes. —Ruud 21:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Too soon with insufficient sources. Too few citations in GS as yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist Nordic Nightfury 12:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. The metaphor free approach for Metaheuristcs is still a matter of opinion of some researchers. There is not any consensus in Academia defining whether we should or not use metaphors to describe algorithms; 2. I've got here a list with 59 FSS based papers published in international Journals/Conferences by researchers from many countries. Is it relevant?; 3. What are the formal relevance criteria for considering an article to be published in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joaomonteirof (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this article is deleted we have also to delete all the other articles which don't have a "relevant" number of citations in GS or all the metaphor based metaheuristic algorithms such as PSO, GA, ABC, among many others. --Isabela Maria Albuquerque (talk) 19:51, 6 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. The one thing that's clear is that there's no consensus to delete this title completely. Some people are arguing it should be merged back into one or more parent articles, others are arguing it should be kepts as is. Since none of these alternatives require an admin to carry out, the conversation can (and should) continue at Talk:MBTA Subway. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MBTA Subway[edit]

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

Duplicates existing work. Anmccaff (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't need an AFD to be changed back to a redirect. --NE2 15:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move: historical content to History of the MBTA Subway, or an expanded subsection of History of the MBTA; infobox and some general description to the existing section of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. There's a lot of potential to have an article that traces the interconnected history of the MBTA subway system. Such events as the Riverbank Subway (which would have probably been a branch of what is now the Red Line, but was spurned for what is now part of the Green Line), and the 1945-47 Coolidge Commission report that's dictated almost every expansion since 1952, aren't well covered by existing articles. That's where some of the information that's been moved to this article could do the most good. However, the remaining parts duplicate information that's fine to keep on the MBTA article. Precisely because of its history, the MBTA subway doesn't have a strong identity separate from the operating company (compare to New York City Subway and Washington Metro, which have a strong identity independent from MTA and WMATA), so there's no need to have a separate article about that identity. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there are parts and pieces worth saving. The New York Subways -really Manhattan subways, if you get down to it - were born out of a five-way conflict between the city, the streetcars, the elevateds, electrified steam roads, and, even in the earliest days, buses. Boston, even back in Mr. BERy's day, had an integrated metropolitan system, with many lines switching from surface to elevated to below ground as circumstances required. The is no "Boston Subway" in the sense that this article is using it. Anmccaff (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Boston Subway" may be entirely colloquial, but MBTA Rapid Transit is the technical grouping of a system of BRT, light rail, and heavy rail that comprise the Boston subway, as is always noted in MBTA financial reports. As such, an article centered around this system will help outside users learn about Boston's rapid transit options without having to read a history of the state agency and its extensive operations in an article that focused widely on matters unrelated to the subway operations Tylr00 (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)tylr00[reply]

I found that this page would be useful as it separates the identity of a segment of the MBTA's operations, as does MBTA Bus. When looking at the previous version of the MBTA page, the previous section related to the subway was trite, lacking in unified detail that is shown on the individual line's pages. Many Bostonians use "the T" as a synonym to the subway segment of the MBTA, and don't take buses or commuter rail trains. Additionally, tourists rarely use buses, but frequently use the T. Tylr00 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

Merge this article into the main article and reverting it back to a redirect. At most, this could be an expanded version of the #subway section of the MBTA article and linked to from there. - Denimadept (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Example from the Spanish article
  - The reason I created this page was because the MBTA mainpage reads like a novel about a state agency, not specific around rapid transit in Boston. However, the Spanish version of MBTA, which I am uncertain how to direct to using Wikicoding, can be found here https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_de_Boston, has a simple, clean chart that I think would be great on either the MBTA page or MBTA Subway page (aka the "survivor" page for Boston rapid transit). Any thoughts? Tylr00 (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Tylr00[reply]

The Spanish article is not very well written - I wouldn't give that as the best example. It conflates the subway with the MBTA as a whole, largely ignoring bus, ferry, commuter rail etc. However, if this article is merged back into the main MBTA article, such a chart may be appropriate.

@Tylr00: you can link to other articles on other wikis like [[:es:Metro de Boston]] while will render as es:Metro de Boston. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move and Merge, as suggested above. I have been editing articles about Boston transportation for years, and have many articles on my watchlist. I was rather astonished to discover this article recently, which is an indication of how disconnected it is from the other articles. It does contain some nonduplicated content and references that are worth preserving, by moving them to more appropriate articles. But as has been noted above, the various MBTA rapid transit lines are quite different from each other, and are already handled by the existing articles on each line. The duplicate content here adds little value, and keeping it redundantly updated in parallel with the main articles requires ongoing effort that would be better exerted elsewhere. Reify-tech (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the edit history you will see that this topic was a redirect before 2016-08-25T17:54:12. Unscintillating (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Speedy keep Nomination does not cite a WP:DEL-REASON. This AfD could also be speedy closed as "wrong forum" under our WP:Deletion policy, with the discussion moved to the talk page of the article. Redirect has existed since 2007. The main article is currently tagged as "may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding or removing subheadings." Unscintillating (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? "Duplicates existing work" sounds like a pretty clear statement of a deletion reason to me. Why does the fact that this was previously a redirect make any difference in the matter? Wikipedia:Wrong forum says nothing about that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion forum. If you want a central discussion forum for editorial/content decisions including redirect/merge/standalone, then go about getting it created, as I've heard that it has already been approved. As per current WP:Deletion policy,

“

The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

”

There is nothing in deletion policy that covers where the extension of the red line should be covered. You've not stated a WP:DEL-REASON, and you've not stated WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're misrepresenting how AfD works, and ignoring the arguments that have been made above. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Common outcomes discusses a variety of available outcomes, including moving and merging. This is not a content dispute whatsoever; please stop misrepresenting it as such. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My assertions are backed up by WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion policy. I have also explained my Keep !vote, making sound arguments, and your claim that I've ignored the above discussion is a gratuitous proof by assertion.

You were advised when you posted at this discussion forum that "discussion guidelines are available":

How to contribute

Shortcuts

AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies. Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive.

I suggest you also look at WP:BEFORE A1, which mentions "valid grounds for deletion", which you remain either unwilling or unable to cite. Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The MBTA as an agency and the subway system are each notable enough to deserve their own pages. This is handled appropriately for other cities' transit systems (for example, Dallas Area Rapid Transit and DART Light Rail) and even elsewhere for the MBTA's commuter rail division (see Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and MBTA Commuter Rail). I would recommend keeping this, and adding a "main article" link from the "subway" section of the MBTA page to this page, similar to how the "commuter rail" section has a main article link to MBTA Commuter Rail. Having a separate article is useful for people who are looking for information on the subway specifically, and not the MBTA or its history in general. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus - 10 days without relist. Nordic Nightfury 12:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles about the individual lines that make up this subway system (see Red Line (MBTA), Orange Line (MBTA), Blue Line (MBTA)). In fact, we have articles about the individual subway stations (see links in List of MBTA subway stations). I'm not sure why the individual components of the system are considered notable enough for an article, yet the overall system is not. If for some reason the consensus is not to keep, the article should be redirected to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority#Subway instead of being deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the oldest subway system in North America as well as one of the largest, serving a major city. It clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shelbystripes and Metropolitan90's arguments - we have articles on MBTA Commuter Rail, MBTA Bus, and MBTA Boat, but we're trying to delete the one about the MBTA subway? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 15:21, 8 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Love (producer)[edit]

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

BLP with many sources but they're either interviews (primary, non-independent which don't count for notability) or topic more likely "Health Goth". A promo autobiog borderline notability that's been PRODDed Widefox; talk 12:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete good at self-publicity, got a made-up subculture (that was also PRODed) into the press in 2014, that's actually the entirety of it. (Note the phrasing: it claims he was credited with making it into a real movement, which he was, but it totally isn't and there's no evidence for its existence past the 2014 flurry of generated churnalism.) Doesn't pass WP:MUSBIO, doesn't pass WP:GNG - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya[edit]

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

Vanity page created for non notable religious leader. Lacks notability claimed by multiple reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands, BLP remarkably lacking in checkable RSes - David Gerard (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing about the person can be reliably sourced. All sources are either self-published or fan-published. Anup [Talk] 17:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well known and respect individual. Praised by David Frawley and others. Just needs help with better sourcing. Help with that rather than deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Simon Thomas (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For a WP:BLP, you need to bring the actual sources - we can't have a BLP without them - David Gerard (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus. One !vote to delete isn't enough. (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 11:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nu-Venture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable bus operator, most cites are Flickr images, only written cites are about trivial road incidents. Duncgc10 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non notable transportation company. I'm only seeing local or trivial / PR like mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic Nightfury 12:03, 5 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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 21:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Chapin[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BLP. Article sourced entirely to the website of the Wizards of the Coast game company. LavaBaron (talk) 12:56, 3 August 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 August 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and BLP. Nothing notable about this individual. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Chapin meets the subject-specific criteria here (over 200 pro points, and 5 PT top 8's). There are a couple additional sources that can be used, e.g [39], although the sourcing is somewhat weak. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
once again, the "subject-specific criteria here" may be found on obscure WikiProject, but it is not policy when it comes to notability, which may be found at WP:BIO and WP:NSPORT -- actual, honest to God, Wikipedia policy pages, as agreed upon by the greater community. WP:GNG applies too of course -- and of course he fails that miserably. Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to judge based on the strict letter of the GNG, that's fine. Sources: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] (All found within 2 pages of google searches, excluding a couple of court reports that I could have thrown in there, but would have been primary sources.) Continuing - [45], [46] [47]. I can keep going if anyone is not convinced. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm still not. I would say that those appear to be blogs that would run afoul of WP:USERG, and are not considered reliable sources for our purposes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy that argument, and retract sources 2, 5, and perhaps 6 based on that rationale. That still leaves 6 or 7 sources plus whatever is in the article, which should be plenty for the GNG. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'll keep a watch on this Afd, see what others think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only sourced to blogs, does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I find that statement (sourced only to blogs) to be simply false. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on sources found by Tazerdadog, this article meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep/merge have a source that isn't anything to write home about, meets a reasonable SNG. Eh. I'd prefer we have a list of some sort to merge these folks to. Hobit (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there has been no confirmed consensus these people and their possessed connections of that field are independently notable; there's nothing from the Keep votes actually suggesting this can be convincingly kept, substantiated and improved. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's give this one more spin, though in my opinion this is leaning towards Delete. Can any editor in favor of keeping the article find some reliable sources for the subject's notability? That is to say, not some blog posts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 11:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 22:23, 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. Asserting that other sources exist isn't a useful AfD argument; you need to present specific sources. Likewise with links to search engines. We all know how to use search engines. The hard part is sifting through and evaluating the results. And, of course, number of Facebook likes is totally meaningless. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fadzilah Kamsah[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. claims for notability are questionable . "Motivational expert". Marked for notability for almost 4 years and even Malay language article lacks coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has published a little, but GS cites are tiny WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete non-notable motivational expert.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I frankly would've PRODed, nothing at all for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 07:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bernama is the only official government news agency in Malaysia and is deemed to be the most reliable in the country [48], and when "they" say this guy is a motivational expert [49], it does mean that he is indeed a motivational expert. There are plenty of other reliable English and Malay-language news sources and books that can be found easily on the net. Below my sig is some findsources link that you might find helpful. Deletion is not the proper solution I believe, though I would accept the result of any consensus. Ciao. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 04:17, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He even have 2.4 million fans on Facebook! [50]

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

when is number of Facebook supporters ever been a criteria for notability? LibStar (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, when you have over 2 million people who "like" you, I can imaging that may satisfy the "well-known and significant award or honor" part of WP:NPERSON.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i know, i know, i put it here just for others to gauge his notability. 2.4mil likes for a person in a country with a population of below 30mil is something to ponder upon Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 02:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The Bernama source looks reliable, independent, and provides some depth of coverage of the subject. It's is not enough by itself to pass WP:GNG, but if one filters out the social media fluff from a Google search one also finds more reliable sources such as this one, enough to satisfy both the requirement for multiple sources and the requirement that the subject be notable for more than just one event. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per other users Bernama is a reliable source. There are possibly others out there.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the Weak Keeps, I am re-listing this again to allow LibStar, Xxanthippe, Johnpacklambert and David a chance to comment, in case they wish to oppose the keep assertion. Lourdes 11:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 11:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. number of facebook fans is not notabiiity; this is totally unsupported by any previous afd here and is exactly the way we do not judge notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being famous, by itself, isn't the same thing as being notable in terms of receiving significant reliable source coverage. That Bernama has mentioned him is good, and the publication is fine enough. Yet that's not enough to have the kind of detailed material that we need for a biographical page. I don't doubt that he has some kind of celebrity status, but that's not persuasive for me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:15, 18 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Risto Rekola[edit]

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

Apparent self-promotion by a non-notable author. My search for English-language sources found nothing, and a search by Finnusertop for Finnish sources found nothing that could contribute to notability. ʍ w 02:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ʍ w 02:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My comment from my talk page for convenience here
: I don't think he's notable. I managed to find very meager sources: an interview in Ilkka, and this article (behind paywall) in Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, which judging by the title is not exclusively about him. I'd say AfD is in order here. Of the sources in the article: these are library records. His book is available in ebook form from libraries, but other than that they say nothing. One is a listing of e-books in Finnish libraries by "most popular" in poetry and aphorisms. There's no way to infer what this really means; but it's certainly not relevant to notability. He seems to have a more famous namesake who is a diplomat and ambassador (suurlähettiläs), so don't be fooled by Google results.
– Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the two ebooks include 15 000 palindromes in many languages sorted by subject and alphabetically. Tell me where to find better ones! The books are still most popular in eKirjasto (linguistics and poetry). They are available in normal form, too. Since June the sites are visited nearly 3000 times, so the palindrome fans seem to be interested. When I wrote the first time to the Palindrome article in June the number of daily readers rose from usual level of 1500 to 5500. I know palindromes are not so popular as football, but people have the right to read about them. Risto hot sir (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)— Risto hot sir (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. If the article would be deleted, the English Wikipedia readers miss the opportunity to get information of the only (as far as I know) palindrome book for children and can't listen to double palindromes (palindromes both written and spoken) on video. --Risto hot sir (talk) 06:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC) And the normal sources are not reliable in this case, because the best knowledge of palindromes is found in Finland (it's possible to create more than 100 000 palindromes in Finnish). They don't translate. The most English palindromes include writing errors developed under French influence (while Latin was and is much more phonemic). "Aivot avaavat ovia" ("brains open doors")! Risto hot sir (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ʍ w 19:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alivaltiosihteeri (and it's members Simo Frangen and Pasi Heikura) have been evaluated as notable. They write only in Finnish. The external links don't work. It's easy to find information of ebooks (what's not the case with printed ones). Rekola's ebooks are over ten times more popular in eKirjasto (library)than Alivaltiosihteeri's only one Joukossa virallisuus tiivistyy (2011). The selling in Ellibs is at the same level. Compare the page view statistics! In my opinion notability means that people are interested. Risto hot sir (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, notability has a very specific meaning:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable"

There is an additional notability guideline for authors. It has little to do with what's "popular". Nor does it matter whose writing is "better", or what language it's in. Also, at no point was Alivaltiosihteeri "evaluated as notable". The English Wikipedia has over 5 million articles and is maintained entirely by volunteers, so you might find a number of articles that have yet to be "evaluated"; the existence of other substandard articles is not a reason to keep this one. You should familiarize yourself with the guidelines I've linked if you hope to make a persuasive argument. (Oh, and the "page view statistics" were very low before this AfD was started, not that it matters for this discussion).

ʍ w 14:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only Khlebnikov's page view statistics is higher (of the notable palindromists within 90 days). And 40% of the votes are poorly argumented - Colosseum-stylish. Risto hot sir (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the page view stats have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether this article should be kept. An administrator will asses the arguments and weigh them accordingly before closing. ʍ w 16:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now really worried: it seems that in English Wikipedia there are a lot of articles which haven't been evaluated for years (and the links lead to nowhere). Try to write something unproper to Swedish Wiki (over three million articles for 11 million people) and You will see the text disappear in minutes. How is this possible? But for deleting this article You're doing hard work. Is this because I've made clear that English writing is full of exceptions (the palindromes show this especially well). How do You teach robots to write English in the future? It will be very expensive! The Englishmen love traditions, I guess, but even the Royal Family changed name during World War I: Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (what could be a more German name?) to Windsor (for phonemic reasons perhaps?). Risto hot sir (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a strong argument here to keep. Also, i have previously heard of wikipedia article links becoming invalid when translated. Can someone take a further look into that? 80.249.56.149 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please restate the "strong argument" here, and link the relevant guidelines. ʍ w 17:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finnusertop should check the Estonian article where many Finnish palindromes about Estonia, Finland's "little brother" are presented. Are they notable? The Estonians seem to like them (at the moment more page views than on English side, and the population is only one million). Risto hot sir (talk) 09:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't know why MBisanz chose to re-list the Afd previously when the article should have been deleted, per consensus obvious before the previous re-list. But absent any detailing by him, I am re-listing this again on the basis that MBisanz might have had some significant reasoning. Lourdes 11:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 11:30, 5 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Aakeel[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NACTOR. Antonio Aakeel John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)~~ striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 05:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tries to be referencey, but very little actually about the subject - David Gerard (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is evidence of good referencing here and the article meets WP:NACTOR citation 1. "Has had significant roles in multiple films, television shows, stage shows or other productions." Namely Skins (UK TV series), Moving On (TV series), Doctors (2000 TV series), City of Tiny Lights (film). 178.104.156.127 (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.252.172 (talk) 11:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's mostly bit parts, not significant roles, isn't it? And no, the references aren't good if you actually look at them - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi David, It is mostly significant roles, that don't qualify as bit parts.

1. According to WP:NACTOR “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.”

Subject has lead roles in BBC1’s Doctors and The Line of Freedom film: “After significant roles in BBC Drama Doctors and a prominent character role in International film The Line of Freedom.” Covered in this article. Further evidence to support a significant role in Doctors (2000 TV series) can be seen on Youtube Here.

Also City of Tiny Lights (film) “Antonio Aakeel, 20, will be starring alongside Riz Ahmed of Four Lions and Nightcrawler fame and Doctor Who and Penny Dreadful star Billie Piper in upcoming British crime thriller City of Tiny Lights” as covered In This Article.

Further coverage of starring role in Theatre show ‘Guantanamo Boy’ as reviewed by WhatsonStage Here and Birmingham Mail Here.

References are multiple and have been expanded to include news, reviews and multimedia sources including official news/magazine sites from the BBC and Birmingham Mail respectively. Granted I have a vested interest as creator of said article, but I am aiming to develop further and grow my skills as an editor / source more references. Thanks. Tpmedia04 (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs cleaning up further as references are clunky. I would suggest more editing as opposed to full delete. Article Passes WP:NACTOR

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

“Antonio Aakeel – who was recently scouted by Star Wars star John Boyega’s agent Femi Oguns MBE and has a significant following of nearly 40,000 fans on Facebook” Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.74.158 (talk • contribs)

- Facebook likes has never been used as a measure of Wikipedia notability - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has met WP:NACTOR criteria and the references (when you find the right ones) do denote some notability.
- Also: It appears the nominator of this article has since been confirmed as a Sockpuppet as per Atlantic306.
  - I agree that social media following does not denote notability, but it does positively contribute to the argument of notability, especially when mentioned by a secondary source as seen above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.249.56.149 (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC) 80.249.56.149 (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article meets WP:NACTOR Wikipedia policy citation 1. "“Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.”

This is evident in the references provided (and improved on recently since articles AFD proposal.) Evidence of "Significant" role Here and covered by Birmingham Mail here in relation to Antonio's role in theatre show Guantanamo Boy "Starring Antonio Khela". Note: To avoid any confusion - this actor has had a surname change since performing in this show, as referenced on IMDB credits here "aka Antonio Khela." or "credited as Antonio Khela" making it difficult initially to source some references.

Further evidence to support Wikipedia policy citation 1: Feature film City of Tiny Lights (film) “Antonio Aakeel, 20, will be starring alongside Riz Ahmed of Four Lions and Nightcrawler fame and Doctor Who and Penny Dreadful star Billie Piper in upcoming British crime thriller City of Tiny Lights” as covered In This Article on the actor.

Also, there is reference to further “significant roles in BBC Drama Doctors and a prominent character role in International film The Line of Freedom.”Covered in this article, another feature on him. I have also added the video link to Doctors (2000 TV series) role which can be seen on Youtube Here as proof of evidence.

He will star in the BBC series Moving On (TV series) as referenced here "Antonio will appear as guest lead role Mati." The actor is also mentioned as starring in new TV drama Guilty Pleasures as referenced in this article here "Birmingham actor Antonio Aakeel stars in child grooming drama Guilty Pleasures."

Most recently, the subject has been covered here in a national news feature by Scottish Asian Magazine as well as being interviewed by BBC Asian Network (as mentioned on the official BBC website) here. Note: Click 'Show more' to see the reference to the actor being interviewed. The full interview can be listened to here. Tpmedia04 (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unusually large IP/new editor comments.... Lourdes 11:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 11:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above arguments/evidence - article passes WP:NACTOR Tpmedia04 (talk) 18:46, 12 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) 01:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Systems of inheritance among various peoples[edit]

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

This article's current content is essentially a monograph, and reads as a personal essay. I say reads: it is actually close to unreadable. There are several closely related topics (e.g. Historical inheritance systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I think there is escessive redundancy, and this essay-like article should be the one to go. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to keep the article readable and created several split offs of Historical inheritance systems. But it looks like Ansegam and sockpuppets recreated the mess. So, too bad for my efforts: delete The Banner talk 10:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I feel bad for you. You tried hard to help them get it, but they simply don't. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This content already exists elsewhere. I don't know why there's been such activity on this article in the past couple years. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, Delete or merge to Historical inheritance systems. However, I wonder if it does not in fact contain useful material that might be preserved by splitting out the inheritance practices of various countries. Historical inheritance systems is also something of a mess, and probably also needs splitting. For example, I did not see in it "Common Law land inheritance", as practised in England and Ireland until 1925, and I suspect in US and Commonwealth jurisdictions to this day; possibly I was unobservant. Certainly the present article should not survive as it is: it is a horrible essay. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's too essay like and I strongly suspect that there's a lot of overlap between this article, Historical inheritance systems and Systems of social stratification. It's hard to tell if there is anything in one article and not the other that would be worth merging because, as Guy said, it's close to unreadable. I think the best thing to do would be to start with one article, Historical inheritance systems, reorganize the whole thing using the information and refs there and then split it in a better way (maybe by country) where necessary. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge if you can save something useful. Fruitmince (talk) 00:51, 13 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shameem Reza[edit]

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

No reference and does not pass WP:GNG Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: as per nom. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 18:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced WP:BLP (could have been WP:BLPPROD) with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or any subject-specific notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 17:58, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Carmel School Hazaribagh[edit]

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

No references, barely any stats, empty infobox and WP:NSCHOOL. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 07:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 07:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All secondary schools are notable. See this reference: http://www.icbse.com/schools/carmel-balika-vidyalaya/jh077 Evidently the school has changed its name more than once. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it makes them feel special 2607:FB90:54AC:AF3F:BF6A:7A1D:33E4:10F7 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that's not what the guideline says, Eastmain, Necrothesp. This is: WP:NSCHOOL. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus has long been that all secondary schools are notable. Virtually no secondary school has been deleted at AfD for years. That's consensus. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We here at afd go by consensus based on policy and guidelines. But when it comes to schools, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, an essay overrides the guideline, WP:NSCHOOL. Seems like it is a never-ending loophope (with this one being saved, will make the case of precedent strong by one more pile). Never seen a school article deleted, so it should not as well forms a weak argument but that is it. May be it is one positive outcome of WP:Systemic bias. Anup [Talk] 17:04, 11 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LNG Academy[edit]

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

Either this is a non-notable division or unit within a non-notable school or it's a non-notable educational program run by some company. Tagged as non-notable for 3 years, it's mentioned as being affiliated with a school/company that is redlink, and the only ref is to a company that appears to host this program. DMacks (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Badak LNG#Collaboration With Universities. A passing mention there is about all that this WP:GNG-failing educational programme deserves. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I deleted that target article because I agreed with User:DGG's WP:CSD#A7 tagging of it (after I removed all the copyvio content, even with which it seemed still A7ish and also promotional). That article (creation, and later copyvio insertion) and the creation of the here-nom'ed article, were all by the same editor. I smell COI-promotion. DMacks (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go: editor self-identifies as business development officer and intern at the parent company. DMacks (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in that case, per failing WP:GNG in independent sources and per WP:NOTPROMO. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as an attempted second promotional article on LNG group. There might conceivably be a possibility for a proper article on the group,if someonewithout COI would write it,but there doesn't seem to be enough information readily available to decide. DGG ( talk ) 06:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Mukim[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non Notable Civil Servant. Uncletomwood (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable civil servant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most references are dead links. One peripherally mentions the subject. One is a relatively minor notice of appointment. A third does not mention the subject at all. Nothing indicates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 03:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable bureaucrat. No claim of notability and insufficient RS to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve I've added an in-depth interview from the Times of India (daily circulation about 3 million), and there are abundant mentions of his role in the earthquake in Google Books. Please also review comments made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anil Mukim (2nd nomination): he's had significant roles in government. Little Will (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of Little Will's sources required Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:44, 5 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:36, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CBPC-1[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a low-power tourist information radio station. This is not a class of station that gets a presumption of notability per WP:NMEDIA, because it's a class of station that has been exempt from having to have a CRTC license at all since 2007, making its continued operational status unverifiable. This is, simply put, not a class of radio station that gets to have its own standalone article anymore. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BROADCAST and moreso this: " On the other hand, licensed Travelers' Information Stations are generally not presumed notable, but might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover, or about the company that operates them if that company meets WP:CORP." RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the presumption of notability for broadcast stations does not apply to unlicensed stations such as Canadian tourist information stations (they still need technical authorization from Industry Canada, but that's not sufficient enough for our purposes) — and tourist information stations in general aren't presumed to be notable even when they do have a license. It's also noteworthy that while the CBC requested license revocation in 2007 for its park information stations, the exemption they confirmed their eligibility for actually dates back to 2003. These also aren't the type of stations that will ever get the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CBPI-FM[edit]

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

Radio station which does not meet WP:NMEDIA. Tourist information stations are not entitled to an automatic presumption of notability just because they exist, but must be sourceable over WP:GNG for something more than just the simple fact of having once had a CRTC license -- this class of station is now exempt from CRTC licensing as of 2007, making its current operational status unverifiable according to our needs. This is simply not a class of radio station that gets its own standalone article anymore. I'd suggest a redirect, but given the unverifiability problem there's not much value in redirecting this to an article that could only say that this used to exist and maybe still does but we don't know and have no way of finding out. It's better to just delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BROADCAST and moreso this: " On the other hand, licensed Travelers' Information Stations are generally not presumed notable, but might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover, or about the company that operates them if that company meets WP:CORP." RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 07:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the presumption of notability for broadcast stations does not apply to unlicensed stations such as Canadian tourist information stations (they still need technical authorization from Industry Canada, but that's not sufficient enough for our purposes) — and tourist information stations in general aren't presumed to be notable even when they do have a license. These also aren't the type of stations that will ever get the sufficient coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also add that while the CBC requested license revocation in 2007 for its park information stations, the exemption they confirmed their eligibility for actually dates back to 2003. I only note this for the sake for completeness… --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Anderssen[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability requirements for pornographic actors. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What requirement do you need? It has many sources. What do you want? JLOPO (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 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) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability independent of her own social media profiles and not citeable (is that a word?) to sources beyond that of user submitted sites like IMDB. —Mythdon 07:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody should have to look at this horrific bust... Now seriously, doesn't meet anything. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But wait. Shouldn't an author generally get more time than an hour to establish an article? --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails notability. This article has twice been speedy deleted here and here. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP with no reliable sources. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go look what is the IMDB and the other sources. Are those not reliable. This seems more like personal bias to me. Magnolia677 has a conflict of interest. I have said time and time again what sources would you like but no one responds. Magnolia677 goes and deleted it not even allowing me to finish it. This violates several Wikipedia policies and I will be in contact with an administrator. JLOPO (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What do you want? - JLOPO (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources other than Internet Adult Film Database and the like. Failing that, delete. Jonathunder (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:IMDB/RS, IMDb is not a reliable source for Wikipedia content. It is a user-generated site which can contain uncaught errors, and has no special inclusion criteria beyond the fact that the person exists — and, in fact, we have caught instances where publicity seekers have faked themselves into IMDb by claiming film and television credits they didn't actually hold, because IMDb doesn't have adequate editorial processes in place to prevent that from happening. So no, the existence of a profile on IMDb does not in and of itself constitute notability for our purposes — and IAFD is subject to all of the exact same problems. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' The sources do not meet reliability guidelines, and Anderssen does not meet the notability guidelines for pornographic actresses. IMDb is explicitly defined as a non-reliable source by our guidelines, at least for purposes of determining if a person is notable. IMDb intends to be a comprehensive directory with articles on everyone, Wikipedia has much lower goals for article breadth, with a resulting goal of seeking to have articles that say something meaningful about the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Barely clears A7 with no real claim of passing WP:PORNBIO. Lacks coverage by reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Even the porn trade press has nothing substantial. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO, the GNG, and basic BLP requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No strong claim to passing PORNBIO, and no reliable source coverage to support it. No prejudice against recreation in the future if those things change, but nothing written or sourced here now is adequate to get her an article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 assessment is right; this is a barely sourced BLP with no indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Trump movement[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Never Trump" movement

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

Non notable, non encyclopedic, doesn't exist for other candidates in history and partisan. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 03:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 03:48, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator does not put forth any cognizable reason for deletion, and sources cited plainly demonstrate notability. Neutrality^talk 03:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the reason why this doesn't exist for other candidates in history is because a candidate has never been so openly rejected by their own party before. And this is not something that came and went. Even though now that Trump is the official Republican nominee, this movement is still being talked about. This article has 70 references. None of your reasons for deletion are valid. JDDJS (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable as a political movement, even if it wasn't successful during the primaries. Efforts to stop a candidate's nomination are often included in one's campaign page, but merging this into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 would overburden an already long article. ^Falling_Gravity 04:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - notable political movement, article contains over 70 references all to reliable sources and that's more than enough to justify to assert both notability and verifability. —Mythdon 07:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --- notable movement and the article is well sourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have infoboxed in the related March 2016 AFD which was a Delete, however this now has enough ongoing RS coverage to remain, and splits out from the main article. I still think that it would be better titled/targetted as "Republican opposition to the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign" or similar, however, due to the range of internal opposition. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable political movement, extensive sourcing available under multiple names already in article lede.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important political movement. 70 refs don't lie. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable political movement. Passes WP:GNG by a mile.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's WP:SNOWing, I suggest that the next editor who visits simply close this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and redirect to Hillary Clinton campaign. 2607:FB90:54AC:AF3F:BF6A:7A1D:33E4:10F7 (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)— 2607:FB90:54AC:AF3F:BF6A:7A1D:33E4:10F7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'Keep - It is notable because of the media converage. If there was a Stop Hillary group in the media, then it would have a page but there is not one. --Frmorrison (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – and snow close. This is very much a political movement that is alive and running. Multitude and variety in sources offer a stark contrast to the nominator's rationale. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:37, 7 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) Ya sh ! 17:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Republicans opposing Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

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

Not a notable nor is it encyclopedic. None of this exists for other presidents BlackAmerican (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Possible Merge to List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016 for Balance BlackAmerican (talk) 05:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 03:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 03:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:LISTN, with significant, in-depth coverage of this set/group over a series of months. Coverage is both national and international and notes the historic nature of the intra-party split. See, e.g., NY Times (special interactive feature - NYT has maintained its own list), The Hill (has maintained its own dynamically updated list); Washington Post, the Associated Press, The Guardian, The Independent (referring to "unprecedented splits") and many more. Neutrality^talk 03:41, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Rightly or wrongly this is a situation/issue that gets media attention outside Wikipedia. That said I think, if we keep it, we should make sure the sources support that they are Republicans and that they are on record as against Trump. (And that if they switch to grudgingly supporting Trump, as I believe Michael Reagan did, they be removed. Not that he seems to be on it.) Sometimes these things get so nebulous we end up including anyone who worked for a Republican or anyone who wrote for a conservative magazine and I don't think that's reasonable. (Like say if Whit Stillman endorses Hillary or Johnson I don't think that should count unless we can source he is a self-identified Republican.) I would be good with a List of Democrats opposing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 for balance.--T. Anthony (talk) 05:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such an article might exist in the future, though it would need substantial content. Currently, I count three Democrats on Trump's list of endorsements. I see one Democrat on Gary Johnson's endorsement page and it's hard to tell with Jill Stein's endorsement page. You could probably find some by digging through the Bernie Sanders' endorsement article and finding the holdouts. ^Falling_Gravity 05:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- a relevant list and a topic of discussion. Entries appear to be well sourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - just like I said on the other AFD, this article establishes notability and verifiability in over 88 reliable sources. It is notable in that it discusses coverage regarding the anti-Trump movement, and has been covered in reliable sources and news outlets, even with Trump being the presidential nominee. —Mythdon 07:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of similar articles for other presidents is not a reason for deletion. The fact that there is a strong opposition to this presidential nominee from his own party is a large part of what makes this notable. Meters (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Per Meters' comments above. KConWiki (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per comments of Neutrality, Mythdon, and Meters.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Give it amnesty. No, delete it's illegal ass for stealing a job from a God-fearing Murican list. No, I'll tell you what I think after the election. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is very misleading as written. In some cases, the figures listed have indicated that they don't plan to endorse Trump; in others, they have indicated that they won't vote for Trump; in others, they have indicated that they will be voting for Clinton. Those are 3 very different positions, and the article makes no distinction between them. Also, I wouldn't characterize a non-endorsement as opposition.CFredkin (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My keep was one of the weaker ones, because I think there's some real concerns about the lasting significance and how you do this list. I'm not switching to delete, but I want to agree that if (as it seems likely) it's kept it will need to be looked after and improved. Maybe dividing the sub-sections into who they endorse, or whether they endorse anyone, would be a good idea. Or even spin-off separate lists like List of Republicans endorsing Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016, List of Republicans endorsing Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016, List of Republicans endorsing Evan McMullin presidential campaign, 2016, and have this just be people listed as people just not endorsing anyone or going write-in.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CFredkin has valid complaints about some entries that I have just addressed. These correctable details do not detract from the overall importance of the article. Andy Anderson 04:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs) [reply]

Keep - Just because there might be some problems with how the article is written doesn't mean the whole thing should be deleted. Merging this into other endorsement pages would omit important members of the #NeverTrump movement like Mitt Romney or George Bush. ^Falling_Gravity 01:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Similar to pages of endorsements for Trump and for Clinton; more importantly this is a notable group of Republicans because of the unprecedented number of them who are opposed to Trump. I would say that it is, in fact, encyclopedic, being both reasonably comprehensive, relating to notable people, and well-documented Andy Anderson 04:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyAnderson (talk • contribs)
Keep Trump has faced more opposition from notable figures in his own party than any general election candidate in recent times. This has generated considerably coverage and is a notable subject.LM2000 (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Neutrality's rationale. List verified by a multitude and variety of reliable sources. Nominator seems to wrongly assume in their rationale for deletion that that this article is made up of Republican's now supporting Clinton; it's actually made up of Republican's now supporting Clinton, Republican's now supporting Johnson, Republican's not voting – what do all three have in common? not supporting Trump. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Neutrality Moira98 (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Instances of GOP candidates opposing Trump have been notable. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 16:04, 12 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. spam Jimfbleak (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infonautics[edit]

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

Blatant WP:PROMO by a user who has been blocked due to promotional editing. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11 as corprate spam. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KGirlTrucker81: for the record, I tried that. Just Chilling (talk · contribs) denied the request for some reason... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Oh, maybe is not promo I think but still promotional. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 10:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant self promotion. —Mythdon 07:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd call it a G11 too, but there's no way it'll survive AFD in this condition - David Gerard (talk) 11:39, 5 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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actorexpo[edit]

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

Mild sort of an advert for a job expo for actors. No RS. Pretty much no ghits under this name. Orgaisation's website is kaput. Cruft from 2008. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, barring a sudden influx of RSes - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appear to have been no mentions of this event after its last occurrence in 2011. Mduvekot (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unreferenced promotional essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windmill Organics[edit]

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

non notable company. almost all the refs are just official listings. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neither assertion nor evidence of notability by any standard, however loose. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article itself is describing the firm's existence rather than asserting notability. My searches are finding little, beyond a small quantity of passing coverage of a product recall. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local business whose notability is neither established elsewhere independent of the area which its located nor able to be cited to enough sources other than primary sources. Notability for inclusion within Wikipedia is nowhere to be established here, to that extent, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of every single local business in any given local area. —Mythdon 07:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not just a local retailer - they have 5 brands: Biofair, Amisa, Biona, Raw Health and Profusion. They look as if they ought to be notable ... but I've sadly not found any RS yet. I'm sure there must be something out there. PamD 10:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your additions. Doesn't the Soil Association's award make it more notable?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Have to have sources before we have article; can't put the cart before the horse. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only other sources I've found are this and this. I'm forced to conclude the organisation is not notable. Adam9007 (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- like other editors, I was not able to find much in a way of independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miss intercontinental[edit]

AfDs for this topic:

Articles for deletion/Miss intercontinental

Articles for deletion/List of Representative of the Philippines to Miss Intercontinental

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

Not notable pageant. Note this article has been deleted twice before[51] and here[52]. Suggest it be SALTED if this AFD ends in delete also. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:07, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. I have to say the capitalisation threw me off. I'm actually surprised this is considered non-notable as I would have thought there would be a decent amount of coverage but as the prev AFDs have shown, there's actually not much there. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a non-notable beauty pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt given the history? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I linked it to de:Miss Intercontinental in WikiData. Several non-English Wikis have articles. If this closes as "delete" we should take note of the fact that we are saying that this pageant is not notable in the English-speaking world and explicitly state that we are not making any comments on its notability in non-English-speaking parts of the world. Or, we should explicitly state that we believe that the pageant is not notable, period, for any Wikipedia which has notability standards similar to the English Wikipedia. While I'm tempted to recommend the second option as it seems to be the case, it seems a bit arrogant for us to say so, therefore I am instead recommending the first option. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:40, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain for now with comment In light of the other-language Wikis I am abstaining for now. However, if it is deleted, it should be salted as it has been repeatedly re-created under various names. The creating editor should be told why it was deleted and salted and why it should not be re-created without going through a process like draft, AFC, or DRV, and that any review process should be done by editors familiar with the deletion history of the articles on the topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on age and large contestant pool. Never heard of it before now, but this is one of the reasons I'd like an SNG -- to say "this group of pageants is a ____ (yes or no) because..." If I were to see evidence that, for example, contestants are bilked of money, or promised something not given, i.e. evidence of fakery or sleeze, I would be willing to reconsider my position, Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. I found one article about the pageant itself. Everything else was limited to passing mentions, mainly that a contestant is going to the pageant. Nothing that supports the content of the current article. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable beauty pageant. Dan arndt (talk) 08:07, 13 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.

[twsDB1-1] "Miss California USA is Chino Hills woman Natasha Martinez". Daily Bulletin. January 12, 2015. Retrieved September 2, 2016. ...Martinez, a former Laker Girl, model for Univision and Princess Jasmin at Disneyland, is a graduate of Chapman University in broadcast journalism. She recently finished an internship with ABC's "On The Red Carpet" and is the host of KDOC's "What a City Eats."...

[2] "Fomer Titleholders". misscausapageant.com/. Retrieved 21 July 2016.

[twsHmag1-3] Lauren Weigle (July 12, 2015). "Miss California Natasha Martinez – Miss USA 2015 Contestant". Heavy magazine. Retrieved September 2, 2016. ...Martinez, who told the Associated Press: It was hard to hear. I think it's important to understand that immigrants come here looking for a better life, ...

[twsOCR1-4] Jonathan Winslow (February 10, 2015). "Winning pageant a huge career boost for Chapman grad Natasha Martinez". Orange County Register. Retrieved September 2, 2016. ...Martinez ... Miss California USA...Martinez graduated from Chapman in 2014 with a degree in broadcast journalism. ... Martinez was offered a job as a host for KDOC TV (LA56)

[twsUsMag1-5] Allison Takeda (July 3, 2015). "Miss USA Contestants Speak Out on Donald Trump Controversy: "Not Once Did I Think About Dropping Out"". Us Magazine. Retrieved September 2, 2016. ...since Donald Trump's controversial remarks about immigration ... Martinez added that she ...pageant," she insisted. "I feel very passionate about my family's background and their ability to grow in this country."

[vvv-6] Lainie Speiser, Confessions of the Hundred Hottest Porn Stars, Quiver, 2011, pp. 204–205. ISBN 1592334776

[7] "Opie and Anthony Headlines". foundrymusic.com. Retrieved 2007-08-18.

[8] "Opie and Anthony Headlines". foundrymusic.com. Retrieved 2007-12-12.

[9] Black Dynamite – Ladies of Leisure

[Caligula-10] Peter Warren (2010-02-18). "Justine Joli Cast in Off-Broadway Take on Caligula". AVN.com. Retrieved 2010-02-19.

[11] AVN

[advdtalk-12] "Justine Joli: The Naked Nerd!", Porn Star Interviews (podcast), September 5, 2007. (page links to MP3 audio file)

[autobio-13] "Autobiographical sketch". Official website. Archived from the original on 2006-03-07. Retrieved 2007-05-26.

[bussel-14] "Hot Sex With a Porn Director" by Rachel Kramer Bussel, Village Voice, March 9, 2006.

[vvv-15] Lainie Speiser (1 June 2011). Confessions of the Hundred Hottest Porn Stars. Fair Winds Press. pp. 204–205. ISBN 978-1-59233-477-3. Retrieved 2 September 2016.

[16] "Opie and Anthony Headlines". foundrymusic.com. Retrieved 2007-08-18.^{[dead link]}

[17] "Black Dynamite". IMDb. 13 January 2010. Retrieved 3 September 2016.

[18] "Ladies of Leisure". 2011. Archived from the original on 20 December 2008. Retrieved 2 September 2016.

[19] "Life on Top". IMDb. 3 October 2009. Retrieved 3 September 2016.

[auto-20] Peter Warren. "Justine Joli Cast in Off-Broadway Take on Caligula". AVN. Retrieved 3 September 2016.

[2014Retire-21] Kernes, Mark (April 17, 2015). "CNBC Discovers the Connection Between Porn and Pot". Adult Video News. Retrieved 17 April 2015.

[autobio-22] "Autobiographical sketch". Official website. Archived from the original on 2006-03-07. Retrieved 2007-05-26.

[advdtalk-23] Justine Joli (September 5, 2007). "JUSTINE JOLI: The Naked Nerd!" (podcast). Retrieved 2 September 2016. {{cite interview}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |city= (help); Unknown parameter |program= ignored (help)

[bussel-24] "Hot Sex With a Porn Director" by Rachel Kramer Bussel, Village Voice, March 9, 2006^{[dead link]}

[25] C. J. A. B Filho., F. B. de Lima Neto, A. J. C. C.. Lins, A. I. S. Nascimento., and M. P. Lima, "A novel search algorithm based on fish school behavior," Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC 2008. IEEE International Conference on, 2008, pp. 2646-2651.(DOI = 10.1109/ICSMC.2008.4811695)

[26] G. M. CAVALCANTI JÚNIOR ; BUARQUE DE LIMA NETO, F. ; Carmelo J. A. Bastos-Filho . On the Analysis of HPSO Improvement by Use of the Volitive Operator of Fish School Search (QUALIS S/C). International Journal of Swarm Intelligence Research, v. 4, p. 62-77, 2013. (DOI => http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jsir.2013010103)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]