Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as attack page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Open standards in Massachusetts[edit]

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

Article is excessively detailed, opinionated, unreferenced, and its subject most likely fails WP:GNG. Quasar G ^{t - c} 23:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Entirely negative and unsourced attack page. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consdnsus DGG ( talk ) 05:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hylophobia[edit]

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

nonnotable phobia. No credible medical references per WP:MEDRS. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete just more "fun with greek". (for anybody unfamiliar with the relentless creation of these articles please read the lead of List of phobias - people have been giving silly greek names to putative phobias since the 1800s. Jytdog (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I thought we deleted all those or redirected them to specific phobias. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaiah Oke[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. A search of the subject on Google isn't showing reliable sources. Moreover, some of the article's references are not about the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article was poorly developed by its creator I must say, but as per WP:GNG an article need not pass every guideline to merit inclusion into the Encylopedia. Now may we all keep in mind that the article is about a Nigerian, third world countries do not have as much resources and exposure, (as per research); the Average Nigerian lives on $1 talk less of access to information materials, the Internet & basic sources. America, Asia, Europe do not have this issue, as so, if it were an article on an American, Asian, or a European I would probably support the nominator. This article up for deletion pertains to an individual born in 1940, in 1940, the Country Nigeria had not even been given their independence, so we all could imagine how low technology was, regardless, articles were still written about this individual somehow, that obviously portrays a form of notability, a major problem is failure to do proper research before nominating an article for deletion, most editors often make the mistake of ascribing notability just by number of Google hits found and if not satisfied with results, nominates the article. That is why Wikipedia has a policy as thus; WP:COMMONSENSE it enables an editor to sit down and use their discretion before taking an action. Some People born in Nigeria, even at the year 2001, do not have sufficient coverage or articles written about them let alone somehow born 20 years prior the Nigerians received their Independence.

Now, Wikipedia also states that rather than a page deletion, efforts should be made to improve the article, the history button for this article Isaiah Oke shows me greatly improving this article, now sir, Versace1608 you are quite knowledgeable and resourceful, now prior nominating this page for deletion, did you at least try your best to improve this article? Did your via talkpage contact the creator of this page and express your displeasure in the articles current state? Do reply me sir. Thank you. Celestina007 (talk) 13:47, 07 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 " the Average Nigerian lives on $1 talk less of access to information materials, the Internet & basic sources. America, Asia, Europe do not have this issue, as so, if it were an article on an American, Asian, or a European I would probably support the nominator." I have no doubt that the situation in countries like this make it difficult to find coverage but I'm not sure how you expect to have an encyclopedic article written if there is not sufficient coverage from reliable sources...it just simply isn't how an encyclopedia works. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found that show subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. And, as nominator noted, much of the article is not about the subject. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN Also potentially a copyvio, but not sure if it's reverse copyvio or not from here since archive.org is down/really slow. That page itself predates the article by a year but the content was changed. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The internet not existing when someone would have written about him is pretty irrelevant, as is evidenced by the thousands of articles we have on people who died hundreds of years ago. However, I can't find any reliable sources that support a single item in this article about him. Sure, plenty on the Yoruba religion but that's not the subject. I found some mentions in books, however they are largely as a result of the article on Wikipedia, even citing Wikipedia. Short of this, which is self-written, there is no coverage of this person significant enough to satisfy WP:GNG. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @ChrissyMad I choose to reply you because your edits and history button shows you are quite intelligent and use common sense a lot when carrying out your duties. Now let me say this; please do allow this deletion process take its full course, you don't need to mention me every now and again as I am not the creator of the article as stated above, I'm only of the opinion it's of encyclopedic value and would be a great read for 3rd party. You said you know thousands of articles written about people who died hundreds of years ago? Please of Which articles do you speak of?

Please can you share with us the community, at least 20 of the 100 articles you speak of? Keep in mind that those articles should be on African people who were at least born in 1940. As we are using the above article as yard-stick. Do so, and I would applogize to the community and change my "strong keep !vote!" to strong delete.Celestina007 (talk) 15:55, 07 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 Regarding me replying to you - I did so based on your vote to explain sources, as I'm not sure that you understand the requirement. What about my !vote was disruptive to this process? I am allowing the deletion process to take its full course by participating in a deletion discussion, which often includes replying to others participating. Is there some reason I am not allowed to? You've missed my point about the lack of internet sources. Are you telling me that we should accept unreliable sources (or non-existent) based on the fact that it's hard to get coverage in Nigeria? Wikipedia accepts books and non-internet sources, provided they are cited correctly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for, but looking at categories (e.g., Category:19th-century South African people) would probably help. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:19th-century Nigerian people. So...yeah it's possible to have articles on people from Nigeria who were born before the age of technology and what not. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chrissymad & NeilN to a certain extent I understand your arguement, it's quite plausible just as mine is, example : Adam, according to the Christian bible is the first man on earth, which is thousands of years ago, wow he surely must not have any articles about him, but wait, he does? How is that so?? How please?? It is so because he is of extreme great value to the history of humanity and Mankind. Now, some African individuals , perhaps even Nigerians born before 1940 have articles about them because like Adam, they were of priceless value to the history of that specific Nation, take a look at the link provided by @NeilN on 19 century Nigerians you'd discover some were traditional prime ministers and some very great kings of powerful states. Do you think that they were the only notable people of their time? Surely not, but because of their very great positions it was mandatory 'history' took note of them, if for example, the subject of our deliberation existed then, a mere shaman, do you think 'history' Would have accommodated him???? The answer is No, and you made a statement above sir @chrissymad implying that this article has no references, it does, but sadly a great part of its Refrences is in print or hard copy, that was why I challenged the nominator, seeing as he is of Nigerian descent to at least try and develop it before this nomination, because surely information resource centers are now available in Nigeria he could walk into any and make good research on this subject I'm not sure the Nigerian information collection centers make use of virtual libraries I could have from my end done the research but again this is one major issue affecting third world countries lack of technology, and mind you @Chrissymad I never said you should cease commenting on this article on the contrary, an intelligent exchange of information is worth more than gold to me. The article itself has some references on it, I'd keep on searching for sources and do the best I can. reply me if you have any questions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 07 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 I'm not sure you're understanding what we are saying nor do I understand what you are saying. If physical sources exist, use them, if they don't, we cannot have an article. The argument that Nigeria/ns won't have adequate sources because of the countries financial instability is a non-starter and rather silly. Look at the last category I gave you, there are hundreds of individuals born well before this man in Nigeria with adequate reliable sources. You're making this into something that it is not, you're comparing apples to houses. I never said there were no sources, just that there were no reliable sources in the article or that I could find. The only source that mentions him is a self-published book. If physical sources exist, find them, cite them properly and update the article. This is an encyclopedia and requires reliable sources, period (particularly for living people.) Instead of continuing to argue about why there might not be sources, why don't you look for the ones that do exist (if they do)? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: As previously stated in my reply to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okon Goes to School, I am in no way obligated to communicate with other editors before deciding to nominate an article for deletion. If I come across an article not suitable for stand-alone inclusion, I am going to nominate it for deletion. I did a Google search of the subject before nominating this article for deletion. Do you expect me to improve an article that do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608 I have instructed the content creator to go to libraries located in his city & source for information and references for his articles as it appears the subject of his article existed in a time when the Internet was not available in his country Nigeria, I have included some inline citations to the article but as stated by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi claims should be supported by sufficient inline citations, in future if the content creator can't still provide references for his article then yes I propose for it to be Deleted.Celestina007 (talk) 14:20, 07 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added was clearly copied directly from this article, it even includes the references section, and in any case I seriously doubt that site qualifies as a reliable source anyway, even if the material was original. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (although the descriptions of cultism read as well as any Dennis Wheatley) as failing WP:PERSON, and much of the actually more important WP:BLP. Probably the most fundamental tenet of that policy ('All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion') is steamrollered- with no prejudice, however, to the argument made regarding WP:BIAS. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 08:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - absolutely no indication that the subject meets WP:NPERSON, being a self proclaimed sorcerer is of no significance at all, as well as really no signs of satisfying WP:GNG; the only sources in the article that actually refer to the subject are a WP mirror and the guy's autobiography, and some searching hasn't turned up anything reliable. Plus obviously the WP:BLP issue. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrija Roy[edit]

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

PROD removed by author and unreliable references are provided which includes a circular ref and a Twitter page. After searching for RSes, this fails GNG and BIO overall. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable source references to show notability, let alone back up the "most popular" claim. Also actress notability guidelines say multiple significant roles in notable productions, here we have maybe 1.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article makes some wild claims which haven't been backed up at all by reliable sources (or any sources) Spiderone 09:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. No reliable sources have covered her work. Created by a single purpose account. Jupitus Smart 11:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as it is about as unambiguous an article written for the sole purpose of promoting a point of view as I have seen for quite a while. Anyone who wishes to campaign on social issues should find somewhere else to do it, not Wikipedia. (The suggested solution of "delete then merge" is not an option, as merging content which has been deleted would be a violation of Wikipedia's copyright terms.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California[edit]

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

WP:SYNTH essay created for a school project, and largely a POV fork of existing articles we have, most notable Housing discrimination in the United States. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Then merge what is applicable into Housing discrimination in the United States. It is a WP:CFORK. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is unusual, CNMail41's appraoch seems to be good. L3X1 (distant write) 23:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pengurusan Aset Air[edit]

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

No evidence of corporate notability. The company exists; every company exists. Google search turns up the usual vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How you define which organization and company really notable and deserve its own Wikipedia article? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review 108 articles in Category:Privately held companies of Malaysia and 90 articles in Category:Companies listed on the Malaysia Exchange. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexander Iskandar - See corporate notability guidelines. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ready to review every article in Category:Privately held companies of Malaysia and Category:Companies listed on the Malaysia Exchange? Too many articles in these categories already being created by a number of different contributors over the past few years with notability issue. Do you think it is acceptable to delete those articles with notability issue? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexander Iskandar - Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Any particular article is reviewed on its own, and the existence of other articles is not an argument to keep an article that has been nominated for deletion. Any registered editor may nominate any of the existing articles for deletion, and we can review them when they are nominated. As to the question, do I think it is acceptable to delete articles with notability issues, you probably know the answer; I think that Wikipedia policy is satisfactory, and that any article that is nominated for deletion should be reviewed as to its notability, and, if the consensus is that it is not notable, it should be deleted. If you disagree with the policy, go to Village pump (policy) or some other policy forum. If you don't want this article reviewed for deletion, please provide a policy-based reason why it should not be reviewed for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you review those articles in Category:Privately held companies of Malaysia and Category:Companies listed on the Malaysia Exchange? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)][reply]

If that was necessary before nominating a single article for deletion, Alexander Iskandar, then very few articles that are members of categories would ever be nominated for deletion. We take an article-by-article approach at AfD. If you think that other articles in the category should be deleted, then please go ahead and nominate them. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to create Draft:Pengurusan Aset Air Berhad? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 07:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NgYShung ^huh? 07:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article provides no evidence of evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A focussed WP:BEFORE search demonstrates that the only reliable sources pertaining to the company only do so in passing, with little WP:DEPTH of coverage, and even then, they are mostly in the context of the parent organization, which, being a Finance Ministry is notable in its own right. However, WP:NOTINHERITED, of course. — O Fortuna^{velut luna...} 12:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, everything else has been said by above editors. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance News & Views[edit]

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

Wholly unsourced article that was submitted for a school project according to the creator. I can't find any secondary sources giving it significant coverage. Given the less-than-favorable opinions of trans people in the 80s and 90s, it is likely that coverage in RS does not exist. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No visible notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Treval Clifford Powers[edit]

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

The subject is non-notable, and no sources are included. Olidog (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I didn't realise there was a special deletion method for unsourced BLPs.

The article isn't eligible for BLPprod as the subject died in 1997. Nthep (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know... I am rather new to this... Olidog (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a major figure in concrete and cement studies. Frequently cited as "T.C. Powers". Called "the father of the modern science of cement-based materials"[2], work called "pioneering"[3], a representative figure for an era of cement technology[4], his work has itself been the subject of academic study[5].--Jahaza (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another journal article on his work[6], another news story calling his work "pioneering"[7].--Jahaza (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thousands of cites on GS passes WP:Prof. Nominator is reminded of WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Passes both WP:PROF#C1 (for his well-cited work) and WP:GNG (for the material about him already linked above). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very clear pass of WP:PROF. @Olidog: When nominating please bear in mind that we're concerned with all sources on a subject that exist, not just those that happen to be currently listed in the article (i.e. you should do some research yourself before nominating). – Joe (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments that this is OR are persuasive. Consensus ist that this may be an encyclopedic topic, but that it would need to be covered in another way than in an essay. Sandstein 13:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of air pollution on health in communities of color in America[edit]

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

Basically a WP:POV fork. This is a school project which seeks to re-state what is already known about air pollution, but wants to focus how bad it is on poor people. Only it lacks reference or context. – S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether or not an article is a school project should be ignored during deletion discussions, but it is still a POV fork. We already have plenty about the health impact of air pollution, and environmental justice exists. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Train2104. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant POV fork. As essays go it is a decent one, but not well-suited to Wikipedia. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srich32977: Additional articles created by this group, all of which look like POV forks: Organophosphate Pesticides Effect on Women's Health, Water contamination in Lawrence and Morgan Counties, Alabama, Racial Housing Discrimination in the Bay Area, California, Food Justice – Train2104 (t • c) 21:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Without reference to whether the article may need cleanup and improvement, the topic is certainly notable — discussion of the fact that pollution has a disproportionate impact on minority communities is accepted mainstream social science. See [8], [9], [10], etc. There certainly can be an article on this topic, and the mere existence of such an article is not inherently POV, any more than the existence of an article on climate change is POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Nuke and pave, because air pollution affects more than black people. Oops, all people, because all people are colored. See? There's a long list of problems: Lead is too long, bad title, most of the article has nothing to do with blacks except for a couple lines thrown into the end of the paragraphs. Since this is and Ed project, they should learn what is acceptable,a nd how to fix it. Useful life skill. L3X1 (distant write) 23:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful pointer could be given out at the Talk page, where there is some Ed-oriented conversation going on. L3X1 (distant write) 23:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fact, in my opinion it should be speedily deleted, as it is perfectly clear that the whole article is a totally blatant attempt to promote a point of view. It is completely incompatible with Wikipedia's principles. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote and some others are reactions that are seem consistent with the voter being unaware of the objective facts out there, and their assuming that the whole topic is nonsense, when it is not. It is simply objective fact that different groups get different pollution, as the wealthier choose to live in cleaner-air neighborhoods and are willing to pay a measurable premium to do so, and as poorer neighborhoods persist in the shadow of industrial and traffic pollution. I have some past familiarity with economic studies of this, including some focusing on areas in California and in Texas. Of course it would be possible to go too far and make outrageous political claims involving false conspiracies, but although the article mentions Trump it does not go down ridiculous pathways. This article needs sensible development and editing, but it is a fair topic. --do ncr am 22:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Merge: Holy title, Batman! What relevant content there is should be merged into Air pollution in the United States, Environmental justice, and similar articles. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NorthBySouthBaranof above. It would, alternatively, also make sense to merge relevant content into, e.g., Environmental justice. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - reading the article, this isn't about "communities of color in America" - this is a general article about the health effects of air pollution. Within that, there's room (IMO) for "disparities in impact" subsections. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable comment to make at the Talk page, to suggest further editing of the article. --do ncr am 21:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork. And warn the course instructor to exercise better oversight of the material created. It's a very POV course ("the assaults on the environment and environmental justice expected to unfold early in the Trump Presidency," emphasis mine), so it's no surprise that it produces POV articles. St Anselm (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You can't say it is a fork without identifying what article it is a fork from. The topic is valid. It is simply a fact that there are disproportionate effects of air pollution, e.g. from unfortunate but fairly "natural" selection of poorer groups to live in the cheap locations downwind of chemical plants (or equivalently from selection of wealthier to move to cleaner-air locations). Major chemical firms deliberately sited plants in remote areas specifically to avoid causing pollution impacts on communities, then development around them happened. This is part of economic history of the United States. And the health effects can be estimated by various approaches, which economists do. Sure, there could be biases in the writing, and the article could/should be discussed and tagged and edited, but this is done through discussion at its Talk page and normal editing. FYI, I saw this mentioned at wp:ANI. --do ncr am 21:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the nature of the course the students are taking has no bearing on the quality of their work and its appropriateness for Wikipedia. The course, among many other things, aims to help neutrally document the Trump Administration's assault on environmental protection. The word "assault" for example stands in for many more aggressive words used by the President himself. Please feel free to engage me about what you think of the course, but please do so without, in a blanket way, undermining the work that Wikipedians and students are doing here

Finally, please consider this advice about systemic bias from within Wikipedia itself

--EJustice (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EJustice, it really looks like you're here on Wikipedia to push a particular POV, and to encourage hundreds of other editors to do the same. St Anselm (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remind User:StAnselm that editors focusing on a niche area is not POV-pushing. The only requirement is that writing in the articles adhere to WP:NPOV. Editors are allowed to have a POV, and discuss on talk pages. Ideally editors with different POV can work together to create an article that has WP:BALANCE.] After reviewing the other pages, I am going to withdraw that comment and leave it there. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNT I notice a lot of uncited sources and possible WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, I think the students must review these policies as the issue is reoccurring across multiple pages. Also problems with the title. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A slanted opinion piece that re-frames and duplicates existing topics to fit the biases of a professor and the students of a class. This is an encyclopedia, not your social justice platform, Professor. IMO this entire wikiedu project is suspect. TheValeyard (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A cross between an essay and a POV fork. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smith & Wesson M&P15[edit]

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

Note: I am changing my vote to keep now based on sources thoughtfully provided by VQuakr (--David Tornheim (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)) Original Post: Does not meet notability requirements. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Firearms#Variants the article should be merged into AR-15 variant. The only notability in the WP:RS appears to be its criminal use, especially in mass shootings; however, there is a consistent rejection of allowing any of that WP:RS to be applied to the article. See for example [11]. Hence, there is no WP:RS to ground the article. I provided notice that notability was an issue here (one month ago), requesting additional WP:RS a be located, and none other than criminal use was provided. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Huh? I see about half a dozen sources demonstrating compliance with WP:GNG already in the article. What WP Firearms has to say about the subject is irrelevant at AfD. If you think the article should be merged then you are at the wrong forum, and if you think the article should be deleted due to a content dispute then you should review WP:POINT. VQuakr (talk) 20:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the reliable secondary sources that make it notable. During the month I asked for sources at the article here, no new ones were provided to make the gun notable. Without WP:GNG, the article cannot stand. Please refrain from accusations and casting aspersions and assume good faith and focus on the matter at hand. Focus on content not editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to review WP:BEFORE; "I asked for someone to hand me sources" is inadequate. The WP:POINT note was a conditional statement specifically prompted by the text of your nomination; it complies with WP:AGF. Since you asked: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18] are examples of independent, significant coverage. Final note - exclusion of some particular content from an article, whether or not that exclusion is editorially valid, is not a reason to delete an article and is not a factor in determining notability of a subject (since notability is an attribute of the subject and is unrelated to the level of coverage currently in any article). VQuakr (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: Thanks for providing better sources! I will change my to keep. It's unfortunate that you were not at the talk page when I made my post 1 month ago. With these sources we can improve the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per VQakr. This is a notable firearm and nothing less than political grandstanding by nominee.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify the reliable secondary sources that make it notable. During the month I asked for sources at the article here, no new ones were provided to make the gun notable. Without WP:GNG, the article cannot stand. Please refrain from accusations and casting aspersions and assume good faith and focus on the matter at hand. Focus on content not editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per the ones above, including what is said about the nomination being WP:POINTY. And David, please do not post the same reply to me as to the others here, I've already read it. Twice even... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 21:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought Delete or Merge. The piece is written atrociously and any attempts to fix it are quickly thwarted.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Searson: can you clarify how your "delete" reasoning is different than the "argument to avoid" outlined at WP:NOTCLEANUP? VQuakr (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so poorly written that almost none of it is worth saving. I went in to help after the AFD and found a poorly sourced, poorly written article that should be an embarrassment to anyone associated with it. I am not a deletionist and while I do think the topic is notable, I would rather see it deleted and rewritten than try to salvage any of it. Cleanup seems impossible when one faction believes that anything mentioning the rifle in a positive way is marketing and that it is only notable because a madman used one to murder people and there is no writeup about the pros and cons of the rifle in The New York Times or Harpers. It does not help when the other side relies on half-assed blogs and press releases instead of higher quality sources. This article and this debate over its deletion is a shitshow.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^Thanks. I mostly agree with what you have written, except I am not on any side, but here to make and maintain an encyclopedia that uses good sources is WP:NPOV and follows our policies and guidelines, etc. I definitely agree that there is too much "rel[iance] on half-assed blogs and press releases instead of higher quality sources". If all of the non-RS was deleted and some real WP:RS was substituted that meets the Firearms#Variants and WP:GNG, I would change my vote to keep. I find it strange that Mike Searson is one of the only other respondents who acknowledges how bad the sourcing is. My experience of discovering the problem was similar to Mike's: I came to the RfC answered, and then later when I looked at how bad the sourcing was I was appalled. I did my own search for better sources, and didn't find anything, but I don't have enough familiarity with the subject to know where to look. I have no objection to positive (or negative) reviews, as long as the sourcing meets WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already plenty of sources listed on the page already to make it notable. All you have to do is go down to the references and see there are different citations from different locations. That follows WP:GNG. Reb1981 (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You mean like [1], the product listing from Smith & Wesson? [2] which is not about the particular gun (and I believe doesn't mention the gun at all), [3] the Press Release from Smith & Wesson? Or [4]-[8] ATF's list of export data? I'm having a hard time identifying the high quality secondary sources you claim exist. Which ones are you calling secondary? What in the article can be saved as being properly sourced? I'm not seeing much of anything. Almost everything looks primary, sales and promotion or not related to the specific gun itself. I find it odd that there is this defense of numerous secondary sources, yet no one can identify any. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then all I can say is your looking for any reason to get rid of this article because all you have to do is look and its there. Did you bother looking at 20 and 21? Like the others are saying this nomination is WP:POINTY. While I agree with others the wording needs improvement, the article is notable. It's a preferred rifle for its reliability and affordability compared to other AR platforms. Reb1981 (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that these two articles^[1]^[2] are sufficient to prove notability?

You are saying that policemag.com and outdoorhub.com are independent reliable secondary sources sufficient to prove notability and the second is not just doing publicity for the manufacturer like the press release? I am not familiar with either source and have insufficient info. to judge. We don't even have a Wikipedia article on either source. They are definitely not the caliber of the New York Times.

--David Tornheim (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources listed in the article provide more than sufficient significant discussion in secondary sources to satisfy WP:GNG several times over. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons above. Springee (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and close. The only problem here is that the proposer is mis-reading the WikiProject Firearms guidelines. That guideline is there to stop people from making new pages on the Smith & Wesson Models 29-1, 29-2, 29-3, 29-4, 629-1, 629-2, 629-3, etc. when they're all covered by the Smith & Wesson Model 29 page. It's not to discourage creating pages on notable (per GNG) models made by other companies. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Obviously meets GNG. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. GNG clearly met. Problem is the pushing of POV content of any thing and every thing that can be construed to be negative into the article without any weight or relevance criteria being applied. If a S&W M&P fell off a table onto someone's toe at a range, this would likely even be added by certain editors, as it would reflect negatively on the rifle, and push a negative agenda. We should not confuse negativity with relevance with notability. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Smith & Wesson M&15 Rifle". Retrieved 15 November 2014.
^ "Smith & Wesson Supplies M&P Rifles to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office". Outdoorhub.com. Retrieved 15 November 2014.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:GEOLAND.In India, a ward is an officially categorized habited place. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vappuzha[edit]

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

Infobox says it is a village, but that is not cohesive with the body of the article. The link provided is dead, and searches provided zero hits. As currently stands, fails WP:GEOLAND, and definitely doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of existence let alone notability Spiderone 09:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this village's existence can be easily verified (e.g., this page from a Government of Kerala website summarizing the 2015 local election results, or these pages on the elected ward members). Thus, this article passes WP:GEOLAND. — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Stringy Acid - those citations show that it is a ward of Chazhoor, not a village. Therefore it is merely a section of a place which passes WP:GEOLAND. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a ward of a panchayat. There's no official "village" categorization in India, which follows the system state -> district -> panchayat -> ward -> unofficial categorizations. Thus, either the panchayat or ward could be unofficially called a village. However, it's still a place with an officially recognized name, with a population of over 1000, and two elected members representing it at the panchayat level. Thus, I don't see why it fails to pass WP:GEOLAND. — Stringy Acid (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GEOLAND which states "Populated, legally recognised places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" AusLondonder (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. apparent consenasus DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath number[edit]

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

Does not meet notability requirements --David Tornheim (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Thanks. Question: Why is mathematics not listed as one of the topics when I use Twinkle? The list of topics in Twinkle is very limited. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed two sources (the Telegraph and Nature) which appeared to be used to support the notability of this concept, but actually don't mention it. With them gone, the only sources that actually cover the EBS number are the first three, all web sites of dubious reliability and independence. The remaining sources are all either about collaboration distances considered more generally, or are used to support original research about the numbers of individual people. I supported keeping the article on Erdős–Bacon number because it was covered in-depth in undisputably reliable sources, despite its unimportance, but for this one I just don't see it. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Times Higher Education a reliable source?

Probably, but it wasn't in the article when I made my comment (and still isn't in the article, not that that affects whether it supports notability). Is there more than source of that quality? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mhhh, it is thematized in this book(scroll down) by Simon Singh. And here too. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons book mentions it only trivially, and the eejournal piece is just a blog-repost of the existing timeblimp source. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a meme. Trivial by nature. This is probably its zenith. I am not sure triviality bars notability. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once the Original Research is stripped out, there just isn't enough to sustain an article. A few sentences in the articles on the Erdős number and its variations would be plenty. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: other than the Times Higher Education source, there are no reliable sources on this topic. The article is basically just WP:OR and synthesis of Erdos/Bacon/Sabbath numbers. I came across Erdős–Bacon number the other day and thought that was pushing it (and that article probably does need to be trimmed of a lot of OR), but Erdős–Bacon–Sabbath is definitely too far. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 00:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sad Delete as someone with a somewhat low Erdős-Sabbath number (7) who needs to make a film with Bacon... I agree with other editors here; the multitude of "sources" serve to distract from the fact that the core of the article is lacking support. Porphyro (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight for Bala[edit]

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

This article (a movie by a kid named Jonah Bryson) is part of a series of articles that are the result of shameless and persistent self-promotion. It was created by MrBean65, who has acknowledged at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonah Bryson of being User:Jonah Bryson and User:Jonah.bryson2. Under a slightly different title, this article has already been deleted at AFD once (see The Fight For Bala (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fight For Bala (film)). It has also been speedy deleted at the title with different capitalization The Fight For Bala.

WWE Raw (28 Nov. 2016)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. A single episode of Raw, only WP:ROUTINE match results. Nikki♥311 18:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 18:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suhas Gopinath[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:Dpradeepc, who attempted to nominate this article here. Their rationale is below. I've corrected the AFD template and have moved the link from the 2nd AFD to this one. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable businessman, no notable contribution, the article is purely promotional, the only claim to fame by this person is being youngest CEO there are lot of people out there claiming to be youngest CEO's, media coverage does not make a person notable.Dpradeepc (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Media coverage is precisely what makes you notable. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cimon Avaro. "they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." WP:BIO. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive Media coverage received which are objective and independent -- Jeevan —Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Letters to Elora[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a band who broke up in 2008, and had never actually achieved anything that satisfied WP:NMUSIC in the first place: the most substantive claim here is winning an award at the Toronto Independent Music Awards, which is not major enough to satisfy NMUSIC #8. As always, Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which a band is automatically entitled to an article just because they existed; RS coverage must verify passage of a specific NMUSIC criterion for an article to become earned. Literally the only reason I'm not just pulling the speedy trigger on this is because it was created in 2007 and has somehow managed to fly under the radar for an entire decade. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. Certainly seems to fail WP:NMUSIC. It's a little bit impressive that it has stuck around this long.bojo | talk 18:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mendota Beacon[edit]

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

Sourced exclusively to state publications. Two-year print run. Probably wouldn't meet WP:ORG. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing anything I'd consider significant coverage in RS. A redirect to Leadership Institute might be a possibility, but there's not likely a close/clear enough link between the two apart from the fact that they provided startup funding for the paper. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added coverage form the Chicago Tribune which I believe satisfies your sourcing concern.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have a million articles (~) on defunct publications, many of them short-lived. We WP:PRESERVE them as part of the historical record (recording history is part of what encyclopedias do) and because they are useful to our users.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes V, NPOV, NOR, in my opinion. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 apparently delete. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KathleenLights[edit]

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

Non-notable youtuber. Improperly sourced. Mduvekot (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mduvekot, could you say what you mean by improperly sourced? There are primary sources to her YouTube channel but these complement a number of secondary beauty sites like Revelist, Bustle, Parsel, and Fashionista. (I helped Rheab16 with this article, but know nothing of the beauty scene. But I can't see that Lights is any less notable than the dozens of other YouTuber's listed.) -Reagle (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll got through them in order. You already agree that YouTube is not a good source. Fashionista may be acceptable. The husband tag is Light herself, so that's an unacceptable primary source. The About Us is KL Polish Light's own company, also an unacceptable primary source. I think you can also agree that that Parsel is a a promo piece in a blog, without a byline, with no signs of editorial control. Colorpop is not an independent source. Then there's more YouTube, and still more YouTube. loveforlacquer is not a reliable source, explorewithcorinth is a blog, more YouTube, Bustle (magazine) is a maybe acceptable as a source, but a look at the article, it shows nothing that is useable for an encyclopedic bio. They're product announcements. Then there's more YouTube. Revelist has no byline, and again, is just a product announcement. Then we get Kali Borovicfrom Bustle again, who tell us that "The colors are gorgeous and the price it totally affordable, making this a makeup lovers dream.". Then we get some more YouTube, and finally Bustle informs us that Light is "This beauty vlogger is known for creating stunning looks on YouTube." None of these sources are substantially about the subject. So yeah, the article is improperly sourced. These are not independent, reliable sources, and they do not establish that the subject is notable. Mduvekot (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I know little of this space, but I've heard of the sites Bustle (magazine) and Fashionista, and Revelist has been used as sources in other articles, so these seemed like evidence of notability and something to build upon. -Reagle (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is quite obviously a YouTuber that deserves a page. Pages like Jaclyn Hill are some to compare; this page has similar sources and even less content. She is also on the List of YouTubers amongst other YouTubers with similar number of followers/subscribers and similar video content (make-up, fashion, beauty). Sources are few, but arguably notable, because presence outside her own social media is limited. I do not believe this page should be deleted. The information is true and is phrased and used objectively. Rheab16 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The number of subscribers to a YouTube channel is irrelevant. We care about coverage in independent, reliable sources. The kind of youtuber that the subject is also has no bearing on notability. I find your statement that Sources are few, but arguably notable, because presence outside her own social media is limited confusing. Are you arguing that she is notable because there is so little coverage in reliable independent media? Do you mean that YouTubers in general are ignored by the mainstream media and that we should have different notability criteria for biographies of "social media personalities"? Please clarify. When replying, please indent your response with semicolons. Mduvekot (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to user space. As written, it both fails to establish notability and is promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It was already moved to userspace, and the current article is the result. Regardless of tirades such as that posted at User:Rheab16/analysis, the article creator failed to research how and what gets published on WP. I nominated the page for deletion back in February, and had conversations with Reagle about several of the articles written by his students. YouTube is not a reliable source. When this was moved to mainspace I took a look and found it incredibly promotional. Which happens frequently with new editors. But if new editors reach out to experienced editors, either directly through talk pages, or through forums such as WP:TEAHOUSE, they are almost always received with positivity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no real claim of significance, let alone any proof of notability. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The article is poorly written and not sourced properly - it needs to use reliable sources (and not youtube videos). However she receives significant coverage - as a quick google-news check shows (alot goes to Bustle. But lots and lots of other places cover her). While makeup is not my thing, it certainly is other people's thing, as evidenced by: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26].Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a bunch more: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. Seems like "beauty vloggers" are much more influential these days than traditional models.Icewhiz (talk) 06:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz Thanks. I think the article should be kept (and rewritten) if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That does not appear to be the case:

[37] is syndicated from a blog, hellogiggles. Neither an independent nor a reliable source.
[38] Bustle is an blog that generates revenue from affiliate marketing, so neither an independent nor a reliable source.
[39] has not content beyond "Kathleen Lights New Nail Polish Line Is Seriously Dope, and We've Got the First Look at Every Single Shade"
[40] Has some outdated stats on her social media reach, and mentions collaborations with Colourpop and Morphe, and her nail polish brand. That's not significant coverage.
[41] Mentions that she's from Florida, has outdated YouTube subscriber numbers and mentions that she has no professional background as a make-up artist.
[42] has as a byline "by Kathleen Lights & PRESENTED BY CREST 3D WHITE WHITESTRIPS". You cannot be seriously suggesting this.
[43] That's an interesting one. Cosmetics firms using social media influencers as a marketing strategy is a relatively new and interesting phenomenon, that probably is worthy of encyclopedic attention, and I'm sure that it can be described in an article like the one on affiliate marketing. Still not sure that the mention of her collaboration with Seed amounts to significant coverage.
[44] Advertisement. Actually says so in the byline.
[45] more from hellogiggles. see above
[46] I'm not sure about WWD. This particular instance reads like a rehashed product announcement. A maybe for me.
[47] Quotes KL, but says nothing about her.
[48] Says that "she has dealt with frequent panic attacks and lingering anxiety caused by trauma" and quotes her quoting her therapist. Is the author, Jessica Eggert, a reliable expert on psychological trauma? Are we going to mention some unsubstantiated claim about mental illness in a BLP? No way.
[49] Glamour (magazine) I'm not sure how Glamour operates, it's part of Condé Nast, appears to have editorial control, but this particular piece is listed under Product Reviews. Those are not independent. They're not journalism, they're promotion.
[50] Only has a quote from KL: ""These new @elfcosmetics brushes literally made me gasp," We're going to use that?
[51] "ColourPop founders Laura and John Nelson marketed the brand by having popular beauty bloggers, like YouTuber Kathleen Lights and Instagrammer Feral Creature, promote the makeup on social pages." That's all they have.
[52] This article is in Indonesian, but it doesn;t tell us anything we didn't already know; she's from Miami and has collaborated with (translation:promoted) a number of cosmetics brands.
[53] The Independent is a real newspaper, and very much a reliable source, most of the time. Except here, the article consists of copies of instagram posts.

TL;DR None of the links above constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mduvekot (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some of these are far from great - and clearly coverage of models can be, umm, vain. But I would say part of the significance of a fashion model is the breadth of her dealings. Here is a bunch more:

[54] (the text is on the side bar - need to slide over to reach, quite a bit of it) - listing + info in a top10 social media list.

[55] - Entry about her in a Swiss newspaper.

[56] - Entry about her in ione (which appears to be Vietnamese or Thai? Google-translate eats it)

[57] - another listing in a vlogger list with some info.

+ of course follower numbers in youtube and instagram + lots and lots of one-liner references in other publications (she tweeted X, she promoted Y, etc.).

I agree this needs a rewrite (+ sourcing RS) - and it won't be me (too far out of my fields of interest) - but if written and sources properly this probably would've passed muster.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've just been show that the sources you provided are not usable, and now you give us even more because you think notability can be established by the sheer amount of unusable sources? Come on. Mduvekot (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked at some of the sources that Icewhiz found - although some are slightly weak sources, there are enough nods and namechecks in sources such as Cosmopolitan, particularly the Indonesian Cosmopolitan link that recommends her as someone to follow, that show that she is notable. The Women's Wear Daily article specifically about her is a good source, and the Business of Fashion source also works for me. I'm less persuaded by the Irish Independent source, but it does support that she is known as a make-up guru. So while the article is pretty lousily written, and the subject may seem instantly non-notable, I think there is plenty of evidence that she is noteworthy in that particular field she has chosen. I concur that vloggers and bloggers do show a lot more influence on fashion nowadays - while she isn't quite as notable as Susanna Lau, she still passes notability for me and I'm usually quite scathing on social media celebs. Mabalu (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete This is just another online celeb of marginal notability with obvious promotional pressure on the article. WP is not social media and is not part of the blogosphere nor the transient celebrity of blogosphere. What is of enduring, encyclopedic interest here? This is not what we are here for. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This article is promotional in tone and should not be kept in its current form. Merely tagging a promotional article as needing rework sometimes isn't good enough. If it isn't made neutral in six days, delete it without prejudice to re-creating it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civil societarianism[edit]

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

Quoted, this gets under a hundred GHits, including about a dozen Wikipedia pages in which it's linked. I can't find any evidence that this is a significant concept. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not significant in the literature. Neutrality^talk 04:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - results for a search at google scholar seem to imply some significance in the literature, but it feels like it would be a better fit at wiktionary, so maybe transwiki, but I don't know if it satisfies policies over there. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Merge, or Redirect If I went by the article alone, I would have supported deletion; there was only one reference and that reference was a broken link. However, I was able to recover it on webarchive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20070225050739/http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=022107A since deletion rests on a lack of notability and not a failure of editors to include sources, I did a quick search and found the topic in several publications right away:

https://mereorthodoxy.com/civil-societarianism-and-the-place-of-the-church/

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2007/02/religion-government-and-civil-society.html

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2132273

https://books.google.com/books?id=0TSSBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=Civil+Societarian&source=bl&ots=f4GUHr7Xrm&sig=DqRMUhiJyZINXcFKXEv8diilO80&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpy-zj_YPTAhVJ9YMKHWWmCm0Q6AEIPzAH#v=onepage&q=Civil%20Societarian&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=iVmkCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=Civil+Societarian&source=bl&ots=enLu1usKmy&sig=UDSF8ZqGgErbOYaUayrNwsfJHMs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpy-zj_YPTAhVJ9YMKHWWmCm0Q6AEIQTAI#v=onepage&q=Civil%20Societarian&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=RYSxAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=Civil+Societarian&source=bl&ots=qt06dygMrd&sig=IhjRIsSaug9rWHgrOV7o7MuP3-Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpy-zj_YPTAhVJ9YMKHWWmCm0Q6AEIQzAJ#v=onepage&q=Civil%20Societarian&f=false

My search yielded 3,410 results so this isn't as obscure as the Wikipedia article made it appear. I am not real familiar with the topic, so perhaps this is already covered in a broader article and doesn't require one of its own, in which case it should be merged. There may also be a synonymous phrase already covered in Wikipedia in which case a redirection of this page would be in order. --Truthtests (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But these all use the phrase in different ways — there's no indication that this is a well-understood concept that can be cohesively explained or described. Neutrality^talk 21:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources listed above are merely a collection of works that use the words next to each other, but there is no consistency in what they mean by the term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not a commonly used term in scholarship, and no widely-accepted meaning; just a rare phrase open to various interpretations by different authors. —Lowellian (reply) 02:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Erwin[edit]

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

Low level minor league baseball player... 23rd round draft pick. No evidence of notability. At this point, he doest even seem notable enough for a merge. Spanneraol (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no suggestion he will become notable, which would be the purpose of merging this content elsewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON at best. Rlendog (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 3472[edit]

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

WP:GNG - non-notable accident, no fatalities, no other reasons for notability, no hull loss, etc. etc.. Whilst the incident is interesting, it is, thankfully, a rare operational hazard of operating gas turbine engined aircraft Petebutt (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let’s examine a few reasons why:
1. Notability - This article meets Wikipedia’s standard of notability. Wikipedia’s standards are “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.” Multiple mainstream and local news sources reported on this incident, a simple Google search confirms this.

2. Commercial Airliner (large jet) - The plane in question was from a top commercial airliner in the US. It was not a light aircraft or military plane. See WP:AIRCRASH

3. Substantial and Unique Damage - There was substantial damage (NTSB’s own words) to the plane and the engine which caught fire and had to be extinguished. The damage was also unique. While there is debris that gets flung from an uncontained engine failure, very rarely does is penetrate the fuselage causing a failure in cabin pressure and narrowly miss passengers or damage critical flight controls which included the wing, vertical stabilizer, and horizontal stabilizer. A great rundown by an aviation safety expert about the rarity and seriousness of this incidence is found here https://www.quora.com/How-dangerous-is-an-engine-failure-for-a-737

4. Uncontained Engine Failure - An uncontained engine failure is a serious and rare occurrence (your own words), unlike the more common and less reported engine failures due to compressor stalls, bird strikes, or pressure/heat problems. It has it’s own wiki page and list of incidences due to its importance. An uncontained engine event occurs when an engine failure results in fragments of rotating engine parts penetrating and exiting through the engine case which is designed to stop it. Uncontained turbine engine disk failures within an aircraft engine present a direct hazard to an airplane and its passengers because high-energy disk fragments can penetrate the cabin or fuel tanks, damage flight control surfaces, or sever flammable fluid or hydraulic lines (in older planes).

5. Public Demand - By using the US Google search for Southwest Flight 3472, three of the most used search terms include the word “wiki” at the end of it. People are looking for the wikipedia article because they most likely curious about what happened and desire a summary of the incident and follow up. Many of the news articles I also came across failed to have all the information on the incident in one place like the engine type, tail number, sequence of events, first hand accounts, investigation proceedings, etc. While this may seem like a non-worhty incident to a self-claimed international pilot like you living outside the U.S. with thousands of flight hours, it has a much different impression for the general public, especially in the country that it affected.

6. “Hull loss and Injuries” - Requiring hull loss or injuries as a requirement for notability is an arbitrary measure that would invalidate many aviation incidents already up on Wikipedia and therefore be inconsistent with past editorial judgement. On the current Southwest Airlines page and uncontained engine failure page there are incidences listed that resulted in zero injuries yet are not deleted due to the importance. An incident should not be valued on if there were no death or injuries but on its notability, rarity, and public demand. Hierophantus (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sustained media notice past September. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the standard then the same argument for deletion could apply to American Airlines Flight 383 (2016) and a variety of other articles. Both Southwest and American were not routine incidences but rare and serious ones and they have enduring notability due to ongoing investigations and the fact that the engines they use are on planes across the world. Also, length of media coverage on a topic has no basis on notability. "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary The fact that the NTSB investigation is not fully completed for either of them, which may lead to FAA or Boeing recommendations that impact all airliners in its class, makes your recommendation fall directly in line with WP:RAPID Hierophantus (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Significant to Southwest's record, rare type of incident.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly noteworth and wikipedia is not a news, nobody injuried, possibly not even noteworthy for a mention on the SWA page. MilborneOne (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uncontained engine failure is a serious and rare occurrence. Not to mention it is significant to Southwest's, a major airline, record. Also, it is my understanding that this incident is still under investigation so we don't know if it will lead to any important changes. Omega13a (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Uncontained engine failures are not that rare (about 15 a year in the United States) most as in this case do not have a "serious" outcome. Fail to see why the effect on Southwest is significant, they have aircraft with technical issues all the time. MilborneOne (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - - You claim 15 uncontained engine failures happen a year in the U.S., this is completely false. This CBS report that cites international safety statistics says there are about 25 incidents a year "internationally" involving a jet engine failing either in flight or on the ground which includes all forms of engine failure, contained and uncontained. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jet-engine-failures-rare-usually-not-fatal/ Also, out of all the uncontained engine failures that do happen, even fewer end up puncturing the fuselage and causing cabin decompression and damaging the critical flight surfaces (wings, horizontal and vertical stabilizers). Hierophantus (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was not a run-of-the-mill engine failure, uncontained or not. It is probably one of the most serious uncontained engine failures not to have resulted in the loss of an aircraft. Final report not out yet, once it is, then maybe that is the time to re-evaluate the accident. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:AIRCRASH. Notability is not temporary. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jake Brockman (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thagana[edit]

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

No indication of notability or encyclopedic relevance. Unsourced. Possible vanity page of author. Jake Brockman (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close: no rationale given for deletion. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Varadamudra[edit]

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

Thalassery (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Extremely large telescope. Consensus not to have an article; the "keep" opinions are poor ("many hits in google"). But no consensus to delete or merge; hence redirect, so editors can add this project to the list. Sandstein 13:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colossus Telescope[edit]

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

WP:NOTE. Primary source only. No evidence of notability/that it is anything more than a PowerPoint project at present. Most of the article is generic to Extremely large telescopes. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is fully noteworthy and absolutely not just a PowerPoint project perhaps you didn't read the whole article, the precursor telescope (PLANETS telescope) have 2.6m USD invested already (50% of the investment, currently been built,expected January 2018) and there are several peer review papers like the cited: "Remote Sensing of Life: Polarimetric Signatures of Photosynthetic Pigments as New Biomarkers, Berdyugina, S.V., Kuhn, J.R., Harrington, D.M., Santl-Temkiv, T., Messersmith, E.J., International Journal of Astrobiology, 15, 45-56 (2016)" [58] Not just a primary source.

And have you check the science team and the organizations backing the project? see: about-us or have you check the tecnology development? see: our-technology Also the technology is totally different then the currently been employed on the Extremely large telescopes, off-axis, low weight mirrors, 3d printed actuators, low scattered light, big savings in cost.Quantanew (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By definition any precursor telescope is not this telescope, so i'm not sure how that is relevant. The paper you cite again is not directly relevant to this telescope concept; it is only tangentially related to ELTs in general. In fact it only references the concept once, and even then in a rather non-committal way;

Large telescopes, such as the 75 m Colossus telescope are needed to investigate hundreds of Earth-like planets in stellar habitable zones.

More importantly it is written by people involved in the concept, thus it is still a primary source. As for other organisations, the website states;

Organizations that have supported the PLANETS telescope.

Firstly supported can mean a lot of things, and universities are involved in many collaborations that aren't of note to include in an encyclopedia. Secondly this is specifically in relation to the proposed precursor, NOT the concept that is the subject of this article. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It fails your lack notability argument, it passes the notability clearly, with a 2.6m dollar investment on the precursor and 2018 delivery, new technology, peer reviewed work, and PLANETS is a telescope and a foundation. You're picking and choosing what is the value of a scientific contribution and how that entails for the whole project, and discounting the science team behind the effort. Quantanew (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more notability videos (not all of them): breakthrough-starshot-updates-with-pete-worden, The PLANETS Foundation: Looking for Life in the Universe, existential-education-the-colossus-project exo-planet-detection-program-for-alpha-centauri Finding ET with the Colossus Telescope - Jeff Kuhn Quantanew (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also the primary sources are from conferences with solid science behind them, is not something controversial to discard so easily, like the way you're trying to do and in any case increases the notability of the project eg. New strategies for an extremely large telescope dedicated to extremely high contrast: the Colossus project Looking beyond 30m-class telescopes: the Colossus project Partially filled aperture interferometric telescopes: achieving large aperture and coronagraphic performance.Quantanew (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another peer review paper on the International Journal of Astrobiology specifically for the Colossus telescope: Global Warming as a Detectable Thermodynamic Marker of Earth-like Extrasolar Civilizations: The case for a Telescope like Colossus, Kuhn, J.R., Berdyugina, S.V., International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 401-410 Quantanew (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More notability Astronomy magazine How to find ET with infrared light, Kuhn, J.R., Berdyugina, S.V., Halliday, D., Harlingten, C., Astronomy, June issue, pp. 30-35 (2013)Quantanew (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review paperGlobal Warming as a Detectable Thermodynamic Marker of Earth-like Extrasolar Civilizations: The case for a Telescope like Colossus, Kuhn, J.R., Berdyugina, S.V., International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 401-410 Quantanew (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: for all the reasons above Quantanew (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON and of course a lack of non-primary sources to indicate notability. Lithopsian (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar drags up a bunch of papers by a Mr. Kuhn, who I presume is intimately related to the project. It gets a paragraph in this conference proceeding, which might be reliable, but certainly isn't significant coverage. I also saw some news churnalism here and there. This is, at-best, a merge to extremely large telescope and at-worst, a delete. The admin closing this can decide how this !vote falls. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is almost no content about the proposed telescope itself (the article subject). What little there is probably should be a footnote in another article. If and when coverage gets beyond primary sources, we should create the article with the information available at the time. No point in creating an article before such content exists. I particularly lean against keeping the article because it looks like an attempt to leverage Wikipedia as a publicity engine rather than to document something notable. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the Spanish version of the article has more information about the telescope proposal itself (for example, that it's 60 separate 8 meter telescopes). If this article does survive, sections 4 & 5 should be deleted outright (they aren't about the proposal), and the lede and section 3 need to be rewritten using English grammar. Section 2 (aside from the spelling error), needs to be more specific "hybrid <anything> technology" is not meaningful without specifying what is being talked about. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel this is been very unfairly reviewed, disregarding peer reviewed sources (see:International Journal of Astrobiology, 14, 401-410 [59], notability sources and sustantial financial and scientific investment already committed on precursor technologies, I could expand more about issues regarding content and grammar but this review has a chilling effect on improving something tha could be deleted. Sections 4 and 5 are precursor efforts. Also the hybrid technology has more details that I could add but after the review. Quantanew (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Extremely large telescope. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. We require that topics be already well known (notable in the Wikipedia sense) as shown by reliable pubished sources covering the topic in depth. These need to be secondary sources, not the primary sources written by people associated with the Colossus project. The fact that the primary sources are peer reviewed doesn't matter. Quantanew, this does not mean that the project is not worthy of note. It just hasn't been published about yet by people independent of the project. We have the same problem with many technical topics that come out of industry rather than academia, where all discussion of development was internal. It can be very frustrating, but if there isn't published independent material there can't be a Wikipedia article. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with a merge instead of deleting the article Quantanew (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Extremely large telescope. StarryGrandma's explanation is spot-on. The article needs reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the Colossus project, but at this point in time, those sources do not appear to exist. Astro4686 (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is clearly a notable telescope project with many hits in google. Fotaun (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: V#Viv Vision. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viv Vision[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character is covered within List_of_Marvel_Comics_characters:_V#Viv_Vision and should be redirected there rather than having a separate article. A series of redirects/reverts have taken place so I bring it here for discussion. Gab4gab (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Completely non-notable and the editor who made it clearly had no intention of actually working on it to make it even a remotely passable article even after I contacted their talk-page and explained to them. More of a "leave it to others to make something of it style".★Trekker (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if article is improved. Character is now a member of the Champions (2016 team).User:tomburbine (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Marvel_Comics_characters:_V#Viv_Vision for now. She is still a relatively new character, and there aren't a whole lot of non-plot sources discussing her right now. As mentioned, she is appearing in more books, and could potentially become a more prominent character with reliable sources discussing her in a non-plot way, and if that occurs this can easily be restored as a separate article. But, until then, a redirect to the main character list is the best choice. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is also a character in the Marvel Tsum Tsum game. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdyUIZ69MBA All the other characters in the game appear to me to be considered notable characters. https://www.tsumtsumcentral.com/MarvelGameCharacterList.aspx User:tomburbine (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the list article. The entry there can be formatted to accommodate the game appearance mentioned above. The criteria for characters to be independently notable is fluid and vague, but my standard go-to is "has this character had a self-titled series?" Viv hasn't had one yet. I do not oppose splitting the article back out if/when there is suitable coverage. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list per above comments. Returning to my redirect vote as I am still not convinced that this has enough notability to warrant its own page at this present moment. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viv Vision has also appeared in Monsters Unleashed (comics) and is treated exactly the same as all other notable characters in the series. User:tomburbine (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

appearing in a notable comic with other notable characters does not confer notability to Viv. Please read WP:GNG. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viv Vision has also appeared on the variant cover of All New Wolverine #13. Non-notable characters are usually not featured on variant covers for other character's comics. https://www.amazon.com/Wolverine-Arthur-Vision-Champions-Variant/dp/B01MCT8CDQ User:tomburbine (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viv is also part of Marvel press releases. https://geek-finity.com/2016/08/22/marvel-teases-that-viv-vision-will-change-the-world-in-octobers-champions/ User:tomburbine (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And covered in outside news sources. http://www.cbr.com/in-champions-viv-visions-wi-fi-password-will-break-your-heart/ https://primaryignition.com/tag/viv-vision/ http://ew.com/article/2016/07/05/marvel-champions/ User:tomburbine (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on notability is focused on the character's notability outside of the context of the series/source material so it is irrelevant to this discussion if the character " has also appeared in Monsters Unleashed (comics) and is treated exactly the same as all other notable characters in the series" as already stated by Argento Surfer. The character's appearance on the variant cover does not lead to notability alone; it would only be useful if the character's appearance on the cover received significant coverage in third-party, notable sources (i.e. more than an appearance on a list or a brief sentence). The press release is a nice resource to have for an article, but it also does not establish notability as it is closely connected to the publisher. It also does not contain that much information on the character aside from a brief description of her identity and that she will be featured in a series. The CBR source is a really good and there is a lot that you can pull out about the character from that. The Primary Ignition source could also be helpful for getting a better grip on the character's reception. The EW source is also good, but the reference to Viv is rather brief. Tl;dr: The cover and the character's appearances in the series does not prove notability, while the three websites listed are a good start. I am still not 100% convinced about this character's notability and would suggest that you keep digging for further resources. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews of Champions all discuss her exploits. http://www.cbr.com/in-champions-viv-visions-wi-fi-password-will-break-your-heart/ http://primaryignition.com/2016/11/07/a-champions-2-review-superhero-camping-trip/ http://bamsmackpow.com/2017/01/10/champions-4-review-sea-faring-adventure-no-pirates/ http://bamsmackpow.com/2017/02/02/champions-5-review-balancing-substance-gwenpool/ http://www.newsarama.com/32609-best-shots-reviews-champions-4-captain-america-sam-wilson-17.html User:tomburbine (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While looking through those sources, I found a somewhat uneven coverage of the character. Some of the articles provide some commentary on the character, while I know that one of them only briefly mentions the character in terms of summary. Again, I think you have done a wonderful job in uncovering more sources on this character and I am definitely getting a better understanding of your argument, but I am just going to wait to either confirm my existing vote or revise it until I hear feedback from other more experienced users. Just pinging the following people to ask their opinion on the latest developments: (@Argento Surfer:@Gab4gab:@*Treker:). Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stirking my vote for now given the inclusion of additional sources; I will look through this again in the future to revise my stance if this is still open. Aoba47 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As Argento Surfer mentioned there is little guidance regarding articles for fictional characters. Previous Afd discussions don't show a lot of consistency in the criteria applied. We do have something in WP:BKMERGE which says (among other things) "...it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on a character or thing from the book,..." Which is contrary to the idea that any major character is 'Wikipedia notable', although it goes on to say there are exceptions. Typically we look for significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Source content that is written by or an interview response from a connected individual does not contribute to notability. This is the case with some of the sources in the article and mentioned here. Coverage in press releases is not independent and thus not helpful to notability. Looking at the current sources in the article:
- The King Builds a Better Family in “Vision" article is an interview of Tom King. Not independent coverage.
- The Marvel's 'Champions': Young superheroes channel activist sides in new series article is another interview of connected individuals. Not independent coverage.
- The Marvel teases that Viv Vision will change the world in October’s “Champions” article has trivial mentions of Viv. It's just a couple sentences and a press release list of Champions #1 facts.
- The Hydra strikes in first preview of Marvel's Secret Empire #1 article has just her name in a list of characters.
- The They Are Champions At Kissing… ( Squee SPOILERS) is a brief article with, imo, one trivial fact.
- The In Champions, Viv Vision’s Wi-Fi Password Will Break Your Heart article does have several mentions of Viv as it runs through the story line.
- The Champions #4 Review: A Sea Faring Adventure With No Pirates article mentions Viv a few times as the story line is summarized. There are four sentences discussing the Viv character separate from the story line content.
- The Viv Vision Skills Intro | MARVEL Tsum Tsum video is not independent, thus not helpful to notability.

That's not much independent coverage of Viv. Character mentions in a plot summary are routine and not an indication of exceptional notability. The Primary Ignition material makes some mentions of Viv but again it's mostly plot summary with nothing in-depth about Viv. I'll look over the other sources mentioned here and update if I've missed something helpful to notability. Gab4gab (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everybody's comments. She is a relatively new character who has never had her own solo series. But she is a member of a relatively new superteam that is published monthly by a major publisher and is getting notability as a member of that superteam. This notability is not translating into lots of news articles just on her but she is getting more prominently displayed on comic covers, other comic series, and video games. User:tomburbine (talk) 01:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. conssensus DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adri Jovin[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. Only an assistant professor. scope_creep (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. I'm not particularly concerned about the academic rank (it's suggestive that someone might not be notable, but not definitive of whether they actually are) but his citations are too low to demonstrate the impact necessary for WP:PROF#C1 and nothing else in the article rises to the level of notability. Writing a self-published textbook certainly doesn't count for much, and neither do his connections to industry. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject does not pass WP:PROF. Most non-academic references in the article are primary, and therefore not good enough to pass WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nowhere near to passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - there is hardly anything found from searches. There are some published articles, but not a lot, in google scholar. I wondered if the Tamil angle might be worth exploring, but I'm not finding anything - even on his webpage to indicate notability or get into specific about what he's doing with Tamil language/technology and TechnicalTamil.com (seems to be down). This is perhaps a case of TOOSOON.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Earth (journal)[edit]

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

Apart from the fact that the title of this article does not match the title given in the lead sentence (which is it??), the article itself makes no claim as to the subject's notability and provides a reference to the journal's own website as one of its two references. Article includes no references to discussion of the subject in multiple reliable independent verifiable secondary sources. This article appears to be one of a series of recently created articles on earth science journals, all of which should probably be scrutinized carefully for notability. A search on the subject results in multiple hits for the journal which are not discussion of it but rather only evidence of its existence. If the journal itself is discussed anywhere, I was not able to find it. KDS4444 (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My apologies for giving the incorrect title in the lead sentence, I have now corrected this. I have read the Wikipedia guidelines on notability for academic journals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) and having done this I believe this particular journal clearly and unambiguously qualifies because it is included in many selective citation indices including Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Journal Citation Reports. It therefore qualifies under criterion C1b and C1c. Metacladistics (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:NJOURNALS. St Anselm (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy pass of NJournals. I have removed the reference to the journal's own website and added several independent ones. As an aside, I have checked all journal articles created by Metacladistics and up till now, they all meet NJournals without any problem. --Randykitty (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Alejandro[edit]

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

As previously noted, this article is likely not to meet Wikipedia's notability standards and further research seems to confirm this. While it may not be the proper action at the moment, this article, at the least, would benefit from merging with another. Geo ^talk 14:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Domdeparis (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CETIS[edit]

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

Unclear notability. Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage. Non-notable organization. SL93 (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 14:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celte Noindication of significance, almost to the point where a speedy A7 would have been justified. ``

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Play Paul[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG; no independent third-party coverage. I pondered tagging this under A7 for speedy deletion but decided to err on the side of caution given the length of time the article has been languishing unreviewed. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Musicians are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their music can be nominally verified as existing; they must pass WP:NMUSIC for at least one specific accomplishment, and be reliably sourceable as having garnered media coverage for that fact. But nothing here meets either of those standards. And notability is not inherited, so he doesn't get a special exemption from having to pass NMUSIC or GNG just because he's the brother of one of the Daft Punk guys either. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent detailed coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and they certainly don't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above. No available sources to support independently meeting WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. --Jack Frost (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AsiaPac International[edit]

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

I do not understand how this company is notable in anyway. Lack of reliable sources, not to mention the article is a stub. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it weren't already here, I'd have considered A7. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surojit Sen[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources. Quasar G ^{t - c} 16:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@inbook{banerjee_sen_2014, title={Fakirs of Bengal}, DOI={10.1017/9789384463090.015}, booktitle={Devotion and Dissent in Indian History}, publisher={Foundation Books}, author={Banerjee, Sumanta and Sen, Surojit}, editor={Ramaswamy, VijayaEditor}, year={2014}, pages={255–273}}

Subhamay (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the subject's co-authorship of a chapter in "Devotion and Dissent in Indian History", and some indication of association with Qaushiq Mukherjee ([60]), neither of which suffices to establish notability in his own right, my searches are finding nothing to indicate encyclopaedic notability, whether under WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR, and nowhere near enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campo da Sucupira[edit]

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

Lacks notability. A small soccer staium (500 places) which is now a training ground only, but supposedly was used for real games in the past. The source for this[61] doesn't even mention the stadium though (searched for sucupira and for coco). Not a major stadium, not even by the standards of Cape Verde (which is a small country). Fram (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GEOFEAT, no indication this ground has played any significant role in Cape Verdean football. Fenix down (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an extremely minor stadium, even by Cape Verde standards. There is no need to have the training grounds for each and every football team because 1.) very difficult to find reliable sourcing, 2.) they often change names or locations. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hamenyimana Jr.[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG Kharkiv07 (T) 13:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable footballer. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far WP:TOOSOON, few footballers pass WP:GNG & WP:NFOOTY before the age of 20. Article can always be recreated in the future when subject passes the guidelines. I see a possible potential for future development. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antel Global Corporate Centre[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable building: I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources at all, only classified ads and the like. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is making no claim to notability for this building, nor are the listings provided as references. Highbeam has decent coverage of Philippines media, but searches there are also returning nothing of note. Fails WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Mulvey[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking non-trivial, in-depth sourcing. Verges on advert. Claim to fame is a minor part in a film. Article appears to be push by COI to get him "noticed." reddogsix (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotionally-toned blurb for an actor. My searches reveal he's had minor parts in a few movies but nothing which suggests he meets the criteria in WP:NACTOR. I can find no evidence he's notable for any other reason. Neiltonks (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Neiltonks - very promotional in tone and fails notability standards. Patient Zero^talk 09:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: easily fails WP:NACTOR. ww2censor (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he had three teeny tiny roles, all of which were single-named. Do I really have to analyze that statement? Bearian (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhambra[edit]

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

Still fails WP:GNG. Last AfD resulted in no consensus, due mainly to lack of input. Sitush (talk) 12:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No real claim of notability, and no sources to even start to provide one. bojo | talk 12:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with Sitush in the last AfD, I too find no RS to provide a NOR, NPOV article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any evidence of GNG Spiderone 09:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Sherrod Library[edit]

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

There is nothing particularly notable about this university library. All sources are primary. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many other academic library entries here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academic_libraries what makes one notable and not the other? Lokiprof (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)lokiprof[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to be very notable. Too many primary sources. Possible WP:COPYVIO with phrases like "Our faculty can place library and/or personal materials on course reserve." bojo | talk 12:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Our faculty can place library and/or personal materials on course reserve." bojo does NOT violate copyright.

Comment @Lokiprof: The presence of other articles of a similar nature on Wikipedia is not a valid argument for the retention of this article. Other articles may or may not meet inclusion criteria either, but this discussion is not about those articles. This discussion is about this particular article, where sufficient notability has not been demonstrated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @WikiDan61: This "The design includes a main stair in the center of the building with dome and clerestory at roof level. Ken Ross Architects Inc./David Leonard Associates PC, were responsible for the library's design, which was highlighted as an "Outstanding Building" in the 1999 Architectural Portfolio of American School & University. In 2000, as part of the library's recognition, President Paul E. Stanton, Jr. remarked "We are pleased to have achieved joint recognition for the design and function of our new Sherrod Library. This is a beautiful facility that impresses all who see or use it, including visitors to campus as well as prospective students and families" doesn't make it notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokiprof (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lokiprof: I don't know that it does. I've added this discussion to the Architecture list; perhaps we'll get some input from experts on the subject. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some target, either to the university article or possibly to a new list-article of the campus buildings of East Tennessee State University, as a compromise. I happen to accept the "other stuff exists" type argument, that there are many academic articles and what is different about this one, is a fair question. Let us note that there are list-articles about university buildings which have been split out of university articles, and which have served as good places to host info about individual dormitories and other buildings that are not hugely notable. See Category:Lists of university and college buildings in the United States. There is East Tennessee State University#Campus buildings which is ripe for splitting out. On the other hand, it lists an indoor arena which has an article and this library, plus numerous perhaps booring academic and residence buildings. We could be on the verge of a campaign to create separate articles about each one.

In favor of this article:

The assertion above that it was designated an "Outstanding Building" in the 1999 Architectural Portfolio of American School & University, although I don't have perspective about the importance of that award.
The general fact that university libraries are fairly salient landmarks in their communities, and usually have relatively more importance to the outside-university public than do dormitories or classroom buildings.
I want to assume good faith on the part of the contributor, as a new contributor who is capable of writing and has much to offer.

Problems of writing can be addressed by editing and/or by tagging, don't require deletion of the whole article.

Not in favor of this article:

This is no Bizzell Memorial Library (an academic library which is in fact historically significant on a U.S. national level); I don't see any assertion of historic importance, nor any significant one of architectural importance
I haven't gone very far in Google News searching, but I haven't turned up anything substantially about the library, besides routine articles in the East Tennessean (a student newspaper, or a university admin publication?) about new staff, what's happening this summer, etc. Onus is on the article developers in general to provide evidence of importance.
Content such as "Our faculty can place library and/or personal materials on course reserve" belongs on a library webpage, and is decidedly not encyclopedic, is not written from the perspective of the encyclopedia. It is embarrassing to see, in fact.
Merger to a list of university buildings is a decent alternative to deletion. It saves the content in the edit history of what becomes a redirect.

In balance, I kind of assume a sort of notability for a university library, although what is present should be edited way down and put in encyclopedic tone. This can be done in a few sentences. A few sentences is perhaps more than is appropriate within the university article. Splitting out a list of campus buildings would provide suitable spot for the few sentences or more about the library.

Note to any closer: if there is still no separate list-article on the university's buildings, that should not stop a close with direction to merge/redirect to such a target. The decision can still be posted at the article; the decision does not have to be implemented all the way immediately. And you can also notify me of such a close and I will create such an article. --do ncr am 17:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a web page for the library not an encyclopedia article. The sort of detail covered is inappropriate to the point of being of interest only to the university's own students. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely primary sourced at the moment, and searches reveal why, not a lot about this library out there. Although a redirect to East Tennessee State University wouldn't hurt. I don't see much, if anything to merge. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG's argument, this is simply a lengthy extension/replication of the library website. The current building, less than 20 years old, doesn't strike me as being notable either. Deletion wouldn't prohibit someone adding a couple of sentences, but merging this entire content would be completely unbalanced. Sionk (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to East Tennessee State University. Seems fairly straightforward. Not seeing any evidence that it's notable outside of the university. All of the sources are primary. The main article mentions it, however, so it only makes sense to redirect, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E je ek obujh prem[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no independent coverage, only sources available are database sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 11:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 09:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Forgotten Realms nations. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threskel[edit]

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

D&D trivia that has no coverage outside a few fan sites. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Forgotten Realms nations. BOZ (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms nations, not a notable thing outside the fictional universe. ValarianB (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Forgotten Realms nations. Very minor fictional location, with no notable, non-primary sources discussing it in any way. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above which may end up just being a redirect, because there's just not much there. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qamdün[edit]

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

Non-notable village with no encylopaedic conent, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Has never been edited since its creation, has no content whatsoever. This is something of a test case because I am concentrating mostly on what a bot has made out of silly redirect titles by assuming the "ü" was a Germanic umlaut, and thus created "Qamduen". That's at RfD, but if we can say nothing about a subject, we should say so. Just having its coordinate data is not good enough, WP:NOTDIRECTORY I think applies. There are hundreds of thousands of these, of course. A good 25,000 with geodata scraped from the INSEE and a good 2,500 from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office, of which a few have encylopaedic content but the vast majority don't. I imagine that the same will apply to many other countries, but French places, Hungarian places and English places are mostly what I discover, because that tends to be my expertise. I appreciate WP:NOTFINISHED but these have not even been started, just imported from a geographical database to bump the number of articles up, without adding any content to them. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Wikipedia is not a directory, but it is a "gazetteer", whatever that is exactly. Generally, well-defined geographical places get kept. --Trovatore (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Chinese name is 香堆 (Xiangdui). There is a Gelug monastery in the vicinity. ~~'Qamdün' might be a phonetic Chinglish rendering of Ganden (tib: དགའ་ལྡན), i.e. Joyous Land, Tushita, also the name of famous monastery near Lhasa.~~ Wrong. The Tibetan name of the place is བྱངས་མདུན (Wylie: byangs mdun). 84.73.134.206 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The population is 8000 people. Here is an article containing an aerial picture of the place. There may be other Xiangdui in Tibet, but I am pretty sure of the identification since the text refers to Chaya (i.e Zhag'yab) County. A big temple is clearly visible and in all likelihood historically significant. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese pages! This government page has nice pictures of the town and of the temple in particular. This Baike article provides a socio-economic overview. There is also a meager Chinese Wikipedia article. Moreover according to this site the town is tied to a specific variety of Tibetan opera. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And it might not even be notable enough for a "List of insignificant Tibetan villages" as well. Collect (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like there are likely to be sources about this village in Chinese (or Tibetan). This is the reason that towns are presumed notable -- things almost always get written about them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From WP:PILLARS: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Applying notability requirements to towns would be a major change and should be brought up at the village pump; I don't see any value in picking away at these one by one. --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think an argument can be made to cull a significant number of Tibetan village articles that say nothing more than "So-and-so is a village in Tibet". I make a distinction, however, for township-level villages (such as this) that are a distinct administrative level of the Chinese settlement hierarchy and clearly meet WP:GEOLAND guidelines. I'm going to work on beefing up many of the township-level and county-level settlement articles for Greater Tibet in the upcoming months, and I'll make sure to include this one. --NoGhost (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally fails notability. Agree with Collect, it's not notable enough to make the list of Insignificant Tibetan villages. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given the sources that the IP has generously provided, it seems that this subject satisfies the intentionally low bar set by WP:GEOLAND. The nominator has linked WP:NOTDIRECTORY but for the life of me I don't see how it applies and would appreciate some specific text to be cited. "Directory entry" is not interchangeable with "an article that is currently very short"; the crux would be whether the subject was incapable of further encyclopedic expansion. Anyone who watches the list of Geography-related deletion discussions sees these sorts of articles nominated regularly; almost always it's a non-English location with a short or poorly formatted article. The nomination usually boils down to "I've never heard of it", and if you're lucky they'll present their hasty, fruitless Google search (in English, of course) as evidence of "non-notability". The articles are usually kept or merged, rarely deleted, because even though AFD is not cleanup, it's typically not hard for someone with the necessary language skills and geographic knowledge to demonstrate the subject's suitability for inclusion (thanks, 84.73.134.206!). "There are hundreds of thousands of these" for a reason, and that reason is found within WP:5PILLARS: A stated aim of Wikipedia is to function at least partially as a gazeteer, and having extant stubs allows for ease of expansion by non-power users who may eventually find the article and improve it. Instead of using this as a "test case" (to do what, exactly? Set precedent for deleting short geographic articles while bypassing WP:BEFORE?), I agree with Trotavore that the nominator would be better served by initializing a larger discussion at the Village Pump, WP:NGEO, or maybe even WP:5PILLARS itself if this sort of article is seen as truly problematic. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. My knowledge of Chinese is actually limited, but GTranslator is a remarkable tool, if used properly. I've added references to the Renda Cliff, a beautiful archaeological site situated in the vicinity of Jamdün. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per work by ip:84.73.134.206, there seem to be plenty of RS to write a V, NPOV, and NOR article. The current state of the article also passes those policies, I think.
Keep article satisfies WP:GEOLAND. SamsaK (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND. If someone wants to change that policy, bring it up at the village pump, not here. Smartyllama (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well if this was a "test case" nom it seems to be a decisive result in favour of our existing policies such as WP:GEOLAND which unambiguously states "Populated, legally recognised places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low" and our most "fundamental principles" which are set out at WP:PILLARS. One of our pillars is that we are a gazetteer. AusLondonder (talk) 00:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PhishMe[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by an anon with the following rationale "sources exist". Well, that's not enough - they are low quality/in-passing/business as usual. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. no conceivable notability.Probably a valid G11 A7 speedy. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Agree with DGG, this is probably a G11 A7 speedy. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing how this fails notability. I found numerous coverage in a wide variety of news sources.TeeVeeed (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @TeeVeeed: Would you be so kind and to link to the best of that coverage here, so we can discuss it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: :http://www.zdnet.com/article/phishme-raises-42-5-million-in-series-c-funding/ this was a good one. http://www.techrepublic.com/article/report-ransomware-attacks-grew-600-in-2016-costing-businesses-1b/ this is pretty good. A review of a recent report about a study they did: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/report-ransomware-attacks-grew-600-in-2016-costing-businesses-1b/ . This one explains what they do more in depth, like simulating phishing attacks and social-engineering http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/blog/techflash/2016/07/what-a-leesburg-cybersecurity-company-plans-to-do.html. TeeVeeed (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the above sources help. The techrepublic article is about a general problem, though they wrote the report being quoted; zdnet is a mere notice; bizjournals is an unreliable PR source, Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with DGG's assessment of the provided sources. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. (athough DGG does appear to have !voted twice). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is interesting to note that WP:NSOFT is referred to both in support of deletion and in support of keeping. That page is an "essay", i.e. a page giving the personal opinions of some editors, and it carries little weight against the other arguments, based on Wikipedia guidelines. It is, however, perfectly true that the notability or lack of notability of the company is irrelevant. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EXMACT[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Winged Blades^Godric 08:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current article is very promotional, and I can't find any independent sources to verify its notability. Fails WP:CORP/WP:PRODUCT. clpo13_(talk) 21:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the article is about a product we think that company notability is not important as noted in WP:PRODUCT. Therefore we think WP:CORP should not be applied. Notability of software is defined at WP:NSOFT. At least one of 4 points is required. EXMACT meets at least "It is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs." We think it meets also "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." but of course it depends on definition of reliable sources. We think that a scientific conference and Czech Department of Industry can be considered as reliable sources.Pahlo7 (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSOFT. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 17:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any references to this software in a search of Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News–which implies that this software has likely received no attention from high quality reliable sources. Until such time as this software receives attention in published books, academic papers, the news media, etc, it does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. (If, at some point in the future, it were to receive such attention, it might become sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia as a result.) SJK (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles: The Fab Four Who Dominated Pop Music for a Decade[edit]

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

Non notable book that completely fails WP:NBOOK. No reviews or critical discussion found on Google, GBooks, GNews, or Highbeam. Ineligible for PROD as was PROD'd in 2010 and de-PROD'd with rationale "article should probably not be deleted without discussion". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, one of hundreds of similar Beatles books that doubtless exist. Only reference supplied is the book itself! Jellyman (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a few citations to this book visible in GBooks, with the author's name usually given as "Rob Burt"; his authorship of a pop-up Beatles book also gets some warm mentions in fansite contexts. But ultimately I couldn't come up with any substantial coverage suggesting that the book is a notable Beatles book (or that the author is a notable Beatles expert). --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I would not have declined the speedy-- there is no indication of any significance DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adapti.me[edit]

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

This was rejected as a CSD but still fails notability today. This is a new startup with no significant independent press coverage. The two references given are both to the incubator that partially owns the startup. Zero articles appear in Google with any significant coverage of this company. And the user who created the page has a username strongly suggesting that they are one of the founders of the company. Perhaps in the future, but this is not even close today. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Selection as one of 5 participants in a start-up incubator programme round does not bring inherent encyclopaedic notability. Nor are my searches finding much: this brief piece is possibly the best but is light start-up coverage and not the standard of reliable coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ansh 666 20:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwave entrainment[edit]

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

A dozen years ago this was kept after a debate with three participants. It has not improved since. I mean, really, not. It now reads much more like a paean to a fringe idea than it used to, and the entire thing looks to have been distilled from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Follows a familiar recipe for a horrid sundae of fail: mishmash one part WP:OR with two parts WP:FRINGE and add a healthy sprinkle of non-WP:RS on top. There is no reason under any notability guideline or WP:V to keep this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Brainwave entrainment seems to be something that is widely studied in the literature. A scholar search reveals many articles published in peer reviewed literature (in good journals too, not just the usual trawl of Beall's list), for example: an article in the journal Neuroscience letters, an article in Physical review letters (!), an article in Scientific American (!). There are quite a few other sources that would need to be investigated, but there is plenty of secondary literature that amply meets even the most stringent sourcing policies and guidelines, to draw from here. The article should definitely make accurately representing the secondary literature on the subject more of a priority, but this is a topic for which there is an abundance of independent sourcing in good academic places with proper peer review on which to draw. AfD is not cleanup. (I am very busy IRL, but would gladly volunteer to help clean this up when I am less busy.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per SB. Bad articles are to be improved, not deleted. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Defenders keep claiming that secondary sources exist, and all the article needs is a good cleanup, but it's been over a decade and the article remains an unreadable, jargon-filled distillation of primary sources. If it's fixable, it needs to be fixed, already. If not, we need to get rid of it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:N. Yes, the article needs copy editing, but it is a notable topic. This is also referred to as "Brainwave synchronization" and "Neural entrainment". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. K2709 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [ptential for improvement. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

@DGG:: The message is truncated; was there something you wanted to add in the opened quotes ? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 S.S.D. Potenza Calcio. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Città di Potenza S.S.[edit]

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

No sources, been a problem since July 2013 (hidden tag)? Endercase (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting from article: Team was "liquidated" in 2014 and their highest honor was regional. Endercase (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it is not a hoax, a Serie D team will likely pass NORG, right? Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: The proper standard is WP:NFOOT (of WP:NSPORT) rarther than WP:NORG, correct? Why do you think it is a hoax? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams suggests that NSPORT does not cover teams. I don't think it is a hoax, but rather I think the only reason to delete an article on a team that played in a national-level minor league might be that the article is a hoax. My thought is that non-local minor league teams usually get enough coverage in regional and national sources to meet NORG, even if the sources aren't immediately found. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for directing me to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams. The first line of WP:NSPORT says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." Then Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Teams says "This guideline does not cover sports teams." Well, which is it? What a contradiction. I will propose WP:NSPORT be clarified. (Done here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Contradiction.3F) --David Tornheim (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC) (revised 13:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC))[reply]

One reason to think it could be a hoax is because it has no references and was made by an account that has had a large number of their article's deleted. Also, I just don't see how a team that played at most 3 years under that name is really notable. Endercase (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet (though in most cases it probably would improve the article to add them)." --WP:ORGIN -- We don't have any sources, and we haven't for a while. -- Endercase (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect back to parent article, no need for separate article. Giant Snowman 08:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: What parent article? --David Tornheim (talk) 13:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a parent article, that I can see. Endercase (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim and Endercase: erm S.S.D. Potenza Calcio? Giant Snowman 07:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just noticed that the initial version of this page linked to History of Potenza S.C., which has sources, but I don't know if those sources are good or not. We should probably check the Italian WIkipedia.

I went to the Italian Wikipedia, and I think I see what is going on. This club apparently had been refounded four times due to controversy, which explains why it was defunct. The controversy including betting scandals and fraud is likely notable, but I haven't seen the WP:RS. With 90 years, I imagine there must be something worth keeping. For ease of looking at it, I include the following:

We should probably try to reflect what is in the Italian article all in one article, assuming the various incantations of the team are notable enough to have an article and get rid of the "History of" portion. I do believe all three of these should be merged into just one article:

I put merger proposals on all those pages and on the talk pages referred editors here.

--David Tornheim (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect along with History of Potenza S.C. to S.S.D. Potenza Calcio parent article, per my previous comment and per GiantSnowman. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim and GiantSnowman: Between all 3 articles there is only one functional source, the others are 404 errors. That one source just says that the team was found guilty of something (doesn't mention what). Wikipedia is the primary source for 99.99% of the material in the articles, in the english internet at the very least. Without better sources I'm still in favor of a delete. But I consent to a 3 article merger, so at the very least 2 pieces of information are verified: the team existed (doesn't mention what their ranking was), they were punished for something. Endercase (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Endercase: are you ignoring all the sources on the Italian-language article (linked above)? Giant Snowman 13:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Well yeah, because they were not part of the merger proposal. All in all a machine translated version of the italian article would be better that what we have here in english. So maybe we should just delete these three and put in redirects that point to the italian article? Though apparently even in the italian article their sources still don't meet wikipedia's standards (hence the tag). I've never heard of that being done though. Endercase (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a silly suggestion, completely without precedent. What we should do is merge/redirect the articles to S.S.D. Potenza Calcio, and then improve that article using the vast number of sources available. Giant Snowman 13:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a silly suggestion that is completely without precedent. But, it could work. At the very least we should keep that Italian article tag on the page after we merge them. Their article is better than our is likely to be. Endercase (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with GiantSnowman that "What we should do is merge/redirect the articles to S.S.D. Potenza Calcio, and then improve that article using the vast number of sources available." [Are they vast?] Although I do think that the tag is helpful right now, once this article has taken out all material that is helpful from the Italian Wikipedia, I think ultimately, it would be removed. (The question is will anyone be motivated enough to do all that work?) I do agree with you that the link to the foreign Wikipedia is helpful at this point and would probably be useful to reader, but it seems that existing consensus is negative towards machine-translations per WP:NONENG, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Additional annotation, Wikipedia:Translation#Avoid_machine_translations and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_130#Links_to_Google_Translate. Linking to the WP:NONENG articles as WP:RS is very much okay, and also providing a link to the machine-translation is acceptable per these discussions and others I have had, but I have never seen anything about linking to foreign wikipedias as a final result of an article. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The question is how far down the footy hierarchy we allow articles on teams, especially those now defunct. If I am right in thinking it crossed the barrier out of being NN for one season, the best solution is probably a merge, but I do not really know. We certainly do not need a separate article on its history. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think we all agree a spate article for the history of a team of this low status is most likely unneeded, a merge is probably the best action, but if non of the information can be backed up from a reliable source a delete would be appropriate as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - if anyone wants to find the Italian versions, they can go to the Italian version from the remaining article, and then read further if they wish. Nfitz (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Persistent vandalism is a reason for page-protection, not page-deletion. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of African countries by GDP (PPP)[edit]

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

The article contains many inaccuracies, and is duplicated by List_of_African_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) Alex80070 (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a complete mess. apparently subject to a lot of vandalism. not clear where the numbers come from but none of it matches what I find on IMF site for 2017 GDP (PPP). Not sure why someone would pick projected numbers and not actual historical numbers. Forecasts change (that's probably why all the numbers look wrong now) and will certainly be different when actual values are determined.Glendoremus (talk) 06:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously, this article was vandalized recently by series of IPs. I reverted the edits to the stable version. I also flagged the article at the protection requests page. These are steps that should have been taken, not a deletion nomination.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of African countries by GDP (nominal) and drop the parenthesis from the title. More useful to readers to have both sets of figures in one sortable table: Noyster (talk), 10:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not the case though with other List of GDP articles on Wikipedia. The norm is typically to have separate articles.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consistent with other pages on GDP, and the vandalism seems to have been dealt with. Even if it isn't, persistent vandalism is a reason for protection, not deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion rationale and some !votes cite errors stemming from vandalism. That is clearly not a valid reason for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 03:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albert M. Wolters[edit]

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

Don't think this meets WP:PROF Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no showing of scholarly impact to pass Academic criteria 1, no other criteria for academics or GNG even approached.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Scholar shows almost 400 cites for his book Creation Regained. This is very high for theology, and demonstrates that he has had a "significant impact in his scholarly discipline". Thus, WP:PROF #1 is clearly met. See also the arguments in the previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert M. Wolters (second nomination). St Anselm (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I only see 292 cites, but that is enough for theology. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The first two results are different editions of the same book, so presumably they should be added together. St Anselm (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article did not contain any of Wolters's significant work on the book of Zechariah, which has now been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.138.149 (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although I freely admit I am not fully across theology & theologists, this subject appears to meet Criterion 4 of WP:NACADEMIC; evidenced by the (relatively) large number of citations of his works. --Jack Frost (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NACADEMIC. Theologians are always difficult but I think he passes pretty easily. As mentioned earlier, his book, "Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview" is currently show 293 citations for the 2005 version (none for the 1985 version that I can find) which is a pretty decent number in Theology. Additionally, WorldCat is showing his books in a number of prominent Divinity schools such as Boston University School of Theology, Yale University, Harvard University Divinity School Library, Duke University, University of Notre Dame, etc. CBS527^Talk 01:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. sufficient consensus that it's trivial DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Headley[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO Lmbro (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like another fifteen minutes of fame.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 12:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. Source do not establish why this subject should have an encyclopedia article about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No wide-spread coverage, not widely known. At best he's a WP:BIO1E. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough resources about the person and he is notable. Mjbmr (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete all the coverage is between 28-30 July 2015. therefore WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftified. No point in keeping this open longer; WP:MfD is still available if deletion is still desired. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented Farmworkers in California[edit]

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

This article appears to be a university-related class assignment. As such, it does not comply with the WP:PURPOSE of WP. Much of the content simply restates POV about undocumented aliens, and has nothing to do with the overall concerns of farmworkers in CA. – S. Rich (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Wikipedia is not your Google Classroom, this doesn't belong here at all, and the rest of the entries from Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of California, Berkeley/Environmental Justice Section 101 (Spring 2017) should probably be reviewed. ValarianB (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created as part of classroom work and such work is encouraged by a whole branch of the Wikipedia Foundation. Check out wikiedu.org. Further it is well documented and covers a topic that affects a large portion of agricultural workers in California. Finally, the arguments for deletion get personal (as in the reference to "your Google Classroom"), which is out of guidelines for Wikipedia EJustice (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The desires of the WMF do not override project policy though, such as WP:NOTESSAY. There's a section in the middle, Undocumented Farmworkers in California#Immigration Policy, that is just an outline, no substance at all. This isn't an article, it is homework. Having students learn to create articles may be laudable, but their work shouldn't have been made live without undergoing some sort of review process, such as Articles for Creation. ValarianB (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the WP:ENB and WP:ENI can help us. Anywhos, the course is not listed at Special:Courses. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sage (Wiki Ed): please take a look. – S. Rich (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. This definitely got moved to mainspace too early. I'll userfy it. User:Ian (Wiki Ed) will probably follow up with the class more broadly tomorrow.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sage (Wiki Ed): You're welcome. Wiki Ed ought to require review by the WP:New pages patrol before these articles go into the mainspace. Also, please get the students and instructors tuned-in on the WP:NPOV channel. – S. Rich (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am reverting closure of this discussion, and I shall revert the move of the article to user space. It is perfectly legitimate to suggest userfication in a deletion discussion, but not to pre-empt discussion by summarily userfying. There are various possible outcomes, including consensus that the article should be userfied, but also including consensus that the page should be deleted, not userfied, and it is not reasonable for an editor to unilaterally prevent one or more possible outcomes from being available. While I have no reason to doubt that the intention behind the move was honourable, the effect was to prevent discussion as to whether the page should be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: It seems to me that the comment I posted immediately above was not clearly thought out. I initially mentioned both the closure of the discussion and the moving of the article to user space, but in giving my reasons I concentrated only on the moving of the page, whereas on reflection I think the closure of the discussion was the real problem. The move of the page by User:Sage_(Wiki_Ed) was perhaps open to debate, but that alone would not have prevented discussion on the possibility of deletion: it would be far from the first time that I had seen a deletion discussion continue after the page under discussion had been moved to a new title. However, the premature closure of the discussion by User:Train2104 was a serious mistake, as it really did stand to prevent community discussion of a proposed deletion. The fact that a page has been moved certainly should not prevent further discussion of the deletion proposal. In view of this revised view of the matter, I shall return the page to userspace, but this discussion should still be allowed to continue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My initial thought was that the content should be upmerged to the Undocumented farmworkers article. But we don't have one. Farmworkers or Farm workers in the United States? Farm labor in the United States? Farm labor? That goes to Primary_sector_of_the_economy#Agriculture. Ok then, Agriculture in California? Nope. We have Farmworker#Demographics and we have Migrant worker, apparently without a section on the US. I'm kinda floored by this apparent gap. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohiuddin Ahmed[edit]

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

The sources cited are his obituary, a similar short piece on an anniversary of his death, and a couple duplicative passing mentions. There is also a book, but no indication that it covers him. It is used only to support the name change of a student group.

From these sources we learn that he was acting president of a student political group. On its own, that is not enough to pass WP:POLITICIAN. We also learn that he was arrested for actively participating in the 1952 Language Movement, took part in the 1962 education movement, and fought for Bangladesh's independence during the Liberation War of 1971. Participating in those events would not be unusual for someone of his age at the time. There is very little detail about the form of his participation, other than that in one case he was at the forefront of a procession.

Mohiuddin Ahmed is a common name, which complicates searches. Several were active in the 1960s and 1970s, among them politicians, diplomats, military officers, and others, but I found nothing to connect them to this student leader. The article asserts that he joined the National Awami Party (NAP), but cites no source. If a source could be produced to show that this Mohiuddin Ahmed was important in a registered political party, I might be persuaded to change my recommendation.

I'm sympathetic to the fact that the peak of his career was in the pre-internet age, but there are enough newspaper databases and books online that I could find information about other Mohiuddin Ahmeds of the period, and about people who were definitely leading figures, but nothing about him until after his death, and nothing more than what the article cites. Searching by his "popularly known as" Bengali name returned no reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~Weak delete - the best I can do is say that Muhith 2008 says that a Mohiuddin Ahmed who was a leftist student leader went on a hungers trike with Sheikh Mujib (a founding father of Bangladesh) while in jail in 1952, and the two became friends. I don't think it is a leap to say this is the same Mohiuddin as the subject of this article. The connection to Sheikh Mujib, I think, is evidence that this Mohiuddin is the same who is mentioned as a leader in the NAP in google books snippet results (see https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=bks&q=%28"Mohiuddin+Ahmad"+OR+"Mohiuddin+Ahmed"%29+"National+Awami+Party"). Coupled with the 12th anniversary of his death being memorialized (UNB story from 2012), I think this person makes a suitable inclusion in wikipedia. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your efforts. Do you have the book you cited, or were you working from Google's snippet view? Be cautious about connecting Mohiuddin Ahmeds. A Mohiuddin Ahmed from Mathbaria, an Awami League leader, joined Mujib in Pirojpur in 1956.[62] A Mohiuddin Ahmed, a member of Mujib's Awami League, was elected Member of Parliament in 1973 from constituency Pabna-5.[63] A Mohiuddin Ahmed was a minister in Mujib's government after Mujib dissolved all political parties and formed BAKSAL.[64] A Mohiuddin Ahmed, a Language Movement veteran and 1971 Liberation War organiser, died on 12 April 1997.[65] And because of the nature of politics at the time, being a leftist student leader is not a good disambiguator.
- Something to be aware of is that Joyshurjo, the creator of the Wikipedia article, also created articles about Mohiuddin 's wife (Raihan Akhter Banu Roni) and their son (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziauddin Ahmed (Joy)). It's a good bet that Joyshurjo has a family connection, and would have known of and mentioned anything as significant as Mohiuddin being an intimate of Mujib's, a Member of Parliament, or a cabinet minister. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I could have guessed, even if I hadn't noticed, that the creator of the page would likely have a personal connection with the subject of the page. I didn't notice just how many Mohiuddin Ahmed's there are, three in the list of members of Bangladesh's first parliament. Given that many Language Movement members were arrested and imprisoned at that time, and there are certainly a number of people with this name involved in Bangladeshi politics, I guess I can't be so sure that this Mohiuddin was the one whom Sheikh Mujib met in prison. I've removed that addition from the page and changed my !vote. Sometimes a page like this will be coupled with a facebook page or something like that that can have more information. A search of likely terms in English and Bengali (my Hindu is bad, my Bengali non-existant, but I can read a name with enough time/help) doesn't seem to find anything. Nor does using google's similar image search [66]). Also, I didn't remember, but now do note that the celebration of the 12th anniversary of an individual's death is somewhat special, I think, so that announcement may be more passing than it seems. I would, of course, consider changing my !vote again. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find in-depth sourcing to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Week. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riki Michele[edit]

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

Non-notable outside of Gene Eugene. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. She is a key member of Adam Again, and yes the former wife of the band's leader. I didn't look for discussions of the subject in relation to the band, but I found entries in Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 1-56563-679-1.. Her own entry on page 590, comprising an entire column (which is my minimum consideration for notability if the subject was active during the time covered by the book, and she has gone on to do work after it was published). She is also mentioned in the two-page long entry on Adam Again on pages 22–24, in discussion of the band Duraluxe (a.k.a. Fluffy) on page 275, The Echoing Green on page 290, Michael Roe on page 773, Randy Stonehill on page 882, and Terry Scott Taylor on page 935 having performed background vocals for all. Much of this is supported in the credits at http://www.allmusic.com/artist/riki-michele-mn0001608480 which also lists credits on works by the Choir (alternative rock band) and Third Day. There are also the following: https://www.axs.com/riki-michele-sounds-to-be-at-peace-with-push-54009 http://popdose.com/cd-review-riki-michele-push/ http://www.tollbooth.org/2002/features/rikim.html http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/news/2014/08/21.Riki%20Michele%20Launches%20Campaign%20For%20New%20Recording.asp all of which push it past the threshold of WP:GNG. If she merits a short bio at AllMusic, it makes sense for us to have one as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Possible~~ Keep but if not kept, then redirect to Adam Again. I added one solid source; more such probably exist. User:Walter Görlitz The best approach to seeing whether she can support an article is for someone to expand and source the article, with the material you have found, but also with reviews and discussion of her work. The fact that sources for an 80s and 90s band may only exist on paper is a problem, but paper sources (like old news clippings) can be used..E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Removing my hesitation after fuller examination of sources brought by Walter Görlitz; especially the Encyclopedia of Christian Music.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The best approach is to discuss it. If the subject is notable then we keep the article. The state of the article does not confer notability to the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. You are absolutely correct. It's just that as a practical matter, I find sourcing more effective than arguing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jam Handy#Filmmaking. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hired![edit]

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

Article does not list or cite any context or notability outside of subject's appearance on two episodes of Mystery Science Theater 3000. In addition, the only pages that link to the article are: pages related to MST3k, a disambiguation page, two film list pages, an article on the production company's founder (where Hired! is discussed only in its context as an MST3k subject), and a few talk and user pages. A search on Google came up with nothing to fix this issue. Jedzz (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this topic is mentioned briefly a few times here, mentions outside of that book are very minor. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If all else fails, this could redirect to Jam_Handy#Filmmaking, where it's mentioned along with another film of his that was MT3K'd. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Tokyogirl79. I think this is a good resolution for this topic. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam_Handy#Filmmaking per Tokyogirl79's suggestion. As the nom mentioned, there are really no sources discussing this in any length or detail. Its only claim to fame is that it was featured in MST3K, and all the sources that do mention it are purely in the context of that. As its already discussed in Jam Handy's main article, a redirect to that would be the perfect solution. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ecid. Asking for page protection. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 07:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Werewolf Hologram[edit]

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

Yet another case of an article about an unremarkable recording that the article creator will not accept being changed to a redirect to the perp. TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect. Not that I necessarily oppose deletion but there is another solution in this case, especially when it seems likely that the author will recreate this page if it gets deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems appropriate to me. Aoba47 (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BoybandPH. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Reyes[edit]

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

Proposing to change this to once again redirect to BoybandPH, as it was previously, before it was made into a stand alone article, mostly by a single editor.

Nothing indicates that this artist is specifically notable outside of their group. LynxTufts (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending all existing individual pages of the members of the group for deletion and have them redirected to BoybandPH instead.

Suggesting that individual profiles of the members be edited into their main group page instead. WikiPH (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BoybandPH - no individual notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources provided and not countered. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and all that; also previous deleted versions of the article have no bearing on the current version. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Whitt[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GRIDIRON does not meet WP:GNG this is a vanity page. The sources are either associated: texastech, raging cajuns, hamstrong... or do not mention him: history.com, fiesta bowl, Mention him in passing: coachad, armedforcesbowl. This is the second time this page has been created once as an autobiographical article by User:Rustywhitt and now by MediaMGT which is a WP:SPA. I suggest salting this. Domdeparis (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nom: googlenews only shows [67]- either WP:PRIMARY sourcing or sourcing that clearly fails WP:INDY. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 17:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nom. I remember this going through CSD a few weeks ago, initally nominated as A7, then blanked and deleted as A3. Jake Brockman (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nom. Reads like a press release; not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not seeing enduring notability. Kierzek (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt as per the nom. "...is a former Green Beret..." is definitely press release talk. Striking my comment; I'm not a sports fan, so I'll stand mute.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and hold the salt). Issues of tone are editing issues, rather than a basis for deletion. Like many (maybe most?) assistant coaches for Power Five football teams, Whitt has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources, including and ESPN College Gameday profile, so as to pass WP:GNG. I found multiple articles from the last 30-day period alone. Examples of the coverage include: (1) ESPN College Gameday Profile of Rusty Whitt, ESPN, Nov 15, 2012; (2) "How adding strength coach Rusty Whitt is stepping up Texas Tech's aggressiveness", The Dallas Morning News, Aug 2, 2016; (3) "A year wiser: Rusty Whitt, Red Raiders make adjustments after a season getting to know each other", Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, March 16, 2017; (4) "Whitt tries to put resilience in Red Raiders, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, March 21, 2017; (5) "Ragin’ Cajuns strength and conditioning coach Rusty Whitt leaving for Texas Tech", The Advocate, Jan 20, 2016; (6) "You Don't Want to Mess With" New Texas Tech Coach Rusty Whitt, Everythinglubbock.com (KLBK and KAMC); (7) "UL’s Rusty Whitt Named Most Intimidating Strength And Conditioning Coach In Football", ESPN 1420, September 26, 2013; (8) "Texas Tech Hires Most Intimidating Strength and Conditioning Coach in NCAA, 1340 The Fan, Jan 11, 2016, (9) Rusty Whitt Shows How Much of a Bad-Ass He Is in Texas Tech’s ’22 Kill’ Video", 1340 The Fan, April 1, 2016, (10) "Whitt named finalist for Armed Forces Merit Award", Daily Toreador, Oct 24, 2016; (11) "Texas Tech hires most intimidating strength and conditioning coach in NCAA", Fox Sports, Jan 12, 2016; (12) New strength coach's intensity has Red Raiders' attention, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, March 6, 2016; (13) "Man of many hats: Whitt’s role more nuanced than his taskmaster reputation", Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, March 17, 2017. Cbl62 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources provided by Cbl62 are strong evidence of notability. @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:, @Jake Brockman:, @Kierzek:, @Gaarmyvet: I'm taking the liberty of pinging you to give you an opportunity to state your opinion on these sources.. Lepricavark (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I generally think the position of strength and condition coach within the hierarchy of staff is more of a medium position. I have just looked through the Big 12 Conference as sample group and found only 2 other strength coaches with articles, Zac Woodfin who seems to have had significant achievements as college player and was pro for a while (pass I'd say), and Jerry Schmidt, who does not seem to have been a player and is also tagged for questions of notability. Other than that I only noticed head coaches, assistant head coach or offense/defense coach. Unless someone takes the effort to create articles for the hundreds of second tier coach staff at all colleges, I don't see what stands out. In terms of mentioned sources, (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (12) and (13) are local media, (10) is the university's student paper where I'd question independence, (8) and (9) I'm unsure of the reach, but probably rather niche in the local market, (1), (7), (11) show some notability, but look more like of passing interest at the time. The article strikes me a lot like a resume. Jake Brockman (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue under WP:GNG is not whether ALL strength and conditioning coaches (see Category:American strength and conditioning coaches) should have articles. The status of other such coaches falls under WP:OSE. The only question here is whether Whitt has received significant coverage in multiple (i.e., more than one) reliable and independent sources. You concede that three of the cited sources are such coverage. Moreover, I disagree with your dismissing other sources as "local". The Dallas Morning News, for example, is a major regional outlet, has won nine Pulitzer Prizes, and is the 12th largest newspaper in the United States. Further, there is nothing in the GNG standards that disqualifies consideration of abundant and repeated significant coverage of Whitt in outlets like the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. IMO this is a clear and easy GNG pass. Cbl62 (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hi just to point out that that that "article" in the pulitizer prize winning paper is signed "By Brandon Soliz, Texas Tech blogger". So I think that we can safely assume that it is not really that sort of source that adds to the notability of this article. Domdeparis (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and just to add the story about him being the most intimidating etc etc comes from the fact that he headbutted a player who was wearing a helmet (and he wasn't) and let the blood run down his face without wiping it off...not sure if that's intimidating or just silly...Domdeparis (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree in questioning the wisdom of headbutting a helmeted player, but then again if GNG was an intelligence test, what would we do with Paris Hilton? Cbl62 (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PH is a good example, though. She has a "USP" and sustained media coverage. She is a brand. Remember that 5-minute storm that hit global news a few weeks back about that "Swedish defence advisor" that Fox had on? I think Nils Bildt or something? Tons of google hits, including multiple pulitzer price winning papers from across the world, but his article got canned because it was seen as only of temporary, not sustained notability. I agree. I know WP:OSE is a slippery slope and every article on it's own merits. But I do see the two in a similar vain from a notability perspective. Right now what I see are a few short term media blips that may potentially just about establish notability in an otherwise very resume / linkedin style article that seeks to establish a personal brand and dips its toes into WP:Promo. IMHO I would - for now - look at it as WP:BLP1E driven somewhat by notoriety from the head butting, until sustained notability is established. Jake Brockman (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to PH was actually a joke. In any event, Whitt clearly doesn't fall under WP:BLP1E as the coverage spans six years from 2012 to 2017, and the headbutting incident was in 2011. As for the "resume" style of the article, the solution is editing, not deletion. I did take a first crack at copy editing, but it still needs work. Cbl62 (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources & research. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Sriivastava[edit]

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

The subject fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR: No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm also nominating the following article created by the same user on the film he directed as I don't think it meets general notability guidelines. – GSS (talk|c|em) 15:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Dahshat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the subject does not pass WP:DIRECTOR. Sources only report the commencement of the production of his first film The Power Of Dahshat. While the film itself may pass WP:NFILM because of the coverage it has received, the director is not notable (yet). — Stringy Acid (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Stringy Acid: I can see only two sources about the film published by TOI and one of them is weighted toward Priyanka Pandit and the other one read more like an advertisment, there is no in-depth coverage sufficient to show the film passes GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this nomination involves two articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both the articles. The director does not have any references that talk in depth about him. And the movie's references even though appear in the The Times of India, are reproduced from Bhojpurimedia.com, a non-WP:RS source, per a footnote in the news reports. Also the news reports for the movie do not cover it in any depth besides confirming that such a movie is being produced. Both fails WP:GNG.Jupitus Smart 11:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither passes WP:GNG, and the one doesn't pass WP:DIRECTOR and the other doesn't meet WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People reported to be born in the Kaaba[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable enough. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) Mhhossein ^talk 05:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mhhossein:, How do you feel about the article, Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the previous AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People reported to be born in the Kaaba? It seems like there was a consensus in the previous AfDs that both article should not exist, but that it was unclear which one should. I agree, and tend to agree with @Grenavitar:'s previous nomination of this article, "This article combines two subjects that need not be combined. It is much better to discuss the Hakim part in the Hakim article and the Ali part in the sub-article of Ali since his article is too long. If there were hundreds of people claimed to be born in the Kaaba it would be different... but there are not." That is, I agree that this article/title is a list that does not seem to be suitable for inclusion. The AfD of Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib was nominated by @Zora:, and while Gren is still active, Zora does not seem to be, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smmurphy: Current title, i.e. People reported to be born in the Kaaba, is funny besides lack of notability and implies that there are plenty of people born in Ka'ba. I'm not optimistic towards Birthplace of Ali ibn Abi Talib either. However, the current one is nearer to deletion in my opinion. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What a disaster of an article. As if someone is saying "look, here is what we think, this is what they think and here is a flood of evidence proving we are right and they are wrong." That is not neutral, simple as that. The state of sourcing is awful and, even worse, it looks like WP:SYNTHESIS, as none present these births together. The other article is hardly any better, except maybe for its language; if the other one gets afd'ed, I'd probably vote delete too (or perhaps redirect due to the somewhat plausible title). --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree by the way that discussing Ali's/Hakim's birth place at their respective biographies is more than enough. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, WP:BOLLOCKS, and WP:NOT. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. This seems like another part of the veritable fiefdom of original research pieces created by a certain user in the mid-2000s. To be fair, that user was an incredibly helpful editor based on their edit history, and created many high-importance articles on religion, but there was also a strong tendency to publish is own research as Wikipedia articles. This is a prime example of that: a series of primary sources used to support an original point which the original author (pre-move) was trying to make. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo should be merged to Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport and Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo to Cristiano Ronaldo.Winged Blades^Godric 07:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo[edit]

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

Whilst the bust is hilariously bad and has received quite a bit of media coverage, it isn't separately noteworthy to the subject Cristiano Ronaldo and doesn't deserve a separate article (it could easily be covered in the in popular culture section of his article). The suggestion was made to the article's creator that they merge it into the Ronaldo article, but they've rejected this. Also nominating Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo for the same reason. Number 5 7 16:02, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if the decision is to delete or merge, the closer also deletes Draft:Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo and Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo as they seem to have been created to pre-empt these outcomes. Number 5 7 18:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both There is even a Museum of Bad Art but neither of these works has the sustained coverage of notability. This is just the current week's "...and finally" story", soft news. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Both bust and statue aren't notable enough for their own pages, but I don't think it should be deleted. Bust should be merged to Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport and statue to Cristiano Ronaldo, as both do contribute to his status and fame, especially in Madeira. --SuperJew (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough. A few sentences at his main article should do it. Kante4 (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article creator. The subject has received a lot of coverage in secondary sourcing:

Selection of sources

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've gone ahead and re-created the article in the draft space.: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Draft:Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo, though now the following error message appears at the top of the page: "This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this talk page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion." Apologies if moving the page was a mistake -- I am just trying to avoid wasting time by having editors participate in premature AfD discussions. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is now moot. Can we please just redirect Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo and Statue of Cristiano Ronaldo, both of which are possible search terms, to the Cristiano Ronaldo article? I didn't expect so much opposition, especially to the airport sculpture, so I can continue working in the draft space. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It won't need an extra article in the future either. Drop the stick. Kante4 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So much for encouraging editors to expand content and create new articles... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find something worth an article as this will not. Kante4 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the destinations SuperJew mentioned above. They have received coverage but I doubt they necessitate a standalone article. p b p 17:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above - per WP:NOTNEWS. There's no deadlines on Wikipedia, so why the rush to create this article? If there turns out to be sustained coverage about this statue in 6 months then I look forward to reading about it here. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. The bust has received a burst of "ha ha, look at this crap bust" novelty news, but there is no indication that it will have lasting significance -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finally, something funny on Wikipedia. There's already one on a statue of him. Why can't this one stay? Greasemann (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of the other page. This one is better, and it's not a statue, it's a bust! Greasemann (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

Thanks, Greasemann, but I've already accepted the merge of both articles. I'll keep working on both drafts, so feel free to view those in the meantime. Note to all: Please just go ahead and merge this content and let's not waste more editors' time discussing here. I'm fine working in the draft space, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know what everyone should do? Work really hard on this article to get it to FA status, and make it April Fools Day's featured article. Greasemann (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

Strange comments from a "new" editor. You're not helping things. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comments about "working in the draft space" Another Believer. The draft space is for working on articles that will eventually be published in the article space, but aren't ready yet. It is highly doubtful that this page will ever be notable enough to be an article, so as suggested above, I'd recommend you to not use your time on this. There's a lot more to contribute to :) --SuperJew (talk) 08:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: That's exactly why I'm working in the draft space: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. I appreciate the recommendation, but I'm comfortable working on articles about public art and won't let an AfD stop me from improving the encyclopedia. You're "highly doubtful", but I'm optimistic! (Also, this wouldn't be the first time I've expanded an article following a merge/delete vote, or even the first Good article I've promoted afterwards.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it's better to make a section on Cristiano Ronaldo's main article as it will fit much better. The statue and bust don't need an article, maybe just a section. Matthewishere0 (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - does not merit a separate article. Giant Snowman 07:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think the above merge votes have illustrated it well enough, while the coverage of the Cristiano Ronaldo bust has gotten a lot of attention, the information is probably best served within the article of the airport itself. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are in desprate need of articles on public art outside of Britain and the United States, there is ample coverage of this sculpture, and the article is well referenced and written. The article highlighted how sparse our coverage of Portuguese art is as I have just had to create the primary Portuguese public art subcategories as a result. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: Thanks, and don't worry, there's a draft at Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo if you'd like to read the longer version of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, no evidence of independent notability. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Received significant media coverage. Hurrygane (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS though. Number 57 16:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GNG though. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." See also: Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is awkward because folks are reviewing and voting on an incomplete live article, when there is a much more complete draft already in the works. If the result of this discussion is merge/delete, then I'm just going to be chastised when I move the draft into the main space for not complying with the results of this discussion. This is exactly what happened with the Not My Presidents Day article, which was nominated for deletion way too soon and resulted in a merge/delete vote. Then, the article was expanded and moved into the main space, resulting in accusations of ignoring the results of the discussion. But now the article is almost done being promoted to Good article status. Why are we discussing the deletion of an incomplete article, and what is going to happen when the more complete draft is moved into the main space? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not awkward. If this results in the article being deleted or merged, you should go to WP:DRV to try and get it overturned, not reinstate the article. Number 57 18:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, that didn't really work well for the Not My Presidents Day article, either, but thanks for the procedural suggestion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No discussion, but failing WP:V is a pretty big problem. Sandstein 13:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Politika 187[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Looked at this about 8 times. Tried to find all the papers. Can't identify Politika187 site. Cant find it at all. All there is, is the Twitter page. Originating editor need to come in and provide additional references. Fails WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adulterous Wife: Dizzy[edit]

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

A catalog-like entry on a movie that does not meet WP:NFILM as the award is trivial. No encyclopedically relevant prose and no independent RS sources that discuss the topic directly & in detail. Many pages with similar notability issues have been deleted; please see for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widow * Second Wife: Real Sucking Engulfing a Rare Utensil (2nd nomination). K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant reliable coverage. SL93 (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Mejia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Kurykh (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unelected candidate for political office who fails WP:NPOL and has no other claim to notability. AusLondonder (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot show and properly source that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get a Wikipedia article for the election itself. But nothing here is enough, and the referencing is nowhere near good enough to claim a WP:GNG pass (it's based entirely on primary sources and user-generated "complete and total coverage of every election" directories.) Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 00:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended tension backstop[edit]

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

Dubious, unverifiable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred G. Wheelock, AfD for its alleged inventor; unverifiable bio as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be treated as being as unverifiable as the article on the equipment's purported inventor. That one of the only two references is to a family's archives is telling. Syek88 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we need some sort of article for a baseball backstop. Some of this content is probably just in need of verification. However, I am not sure how much of the Wheelock content is needed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 03:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also see nothing to verify this. Needing an article on a baseball backstop is not a good reason to keep an article that doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines. We do have Glossary of baseball (B)#backstop anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Center Park, Texas[edit]

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

Can not find reliable references to show this Texas town ever existed. Another editor proded the article, prod was removed by article creator without adding references. Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article claims that it is a small town in Texas. If that were true, it would meet WP:GEOLAND. However, a search of the USGS site reveals no such place by this name, see here. Not only doesn't a town by this name exist, but apparently nothing by this name exists in Texas. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned, there does not seem to be any indication that this supposed town actually exists. Searches bring up absolutely nothing, nor does it appear on any maps that I have looked at. At first, I thought that the article may be referring to Park, Texas, which is an existing area, but as the counties don't match, I don't think that even this is the case. Unless something is brought to light proving this town's existence, we may have to just assume that it is WP:MADEUP. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most likely a mistaken attempt at Center Point, Kerr County, Texas. --NoGhost (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, GNIS turns up nothing, searches of web, books, and news turn up nothing. Shouldn't be so hard to find something for an allegedly existing town in the United States. Antepenultimate (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems likely this is either a mistake or a hoax. As above searches show nothing. AusLondonder (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Stuart[edit]

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

A unremarkable YouTube personality who is not independently notable of his YouTube channel (JStuStudios). The article does not establish independent notability, and should be deleted. I've nominated the channel separately; pls see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JStuStudios.

I am also nominating the following related page because both come across as being part of a walled garden around JStuStudios. The two articles were created in the same timeframe as JStuStudios and by the same contributor. Both follow the same format and fail to demonstrate independent notability, hence I believe it's appropriate to bundle them:

Andrew Scites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I searched for sources on both Scites and Stuart and didn't come up with much. Redirect to JStuStudios (if that is notable to stay - didn't check! might not) + mention there. Definitely TOOSOON.Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. no independent refs of note. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Mjbmr (talk) 06:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The target article is at AfD as well: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JStuStudios. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per nom. Searches did not turn up enough independent sourcing to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Face to Face (2012 album)[edit]

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of the album "Face to Face". Wikipedia's notability section for recording specifies, "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Unfortunately, the two references for this article are not independent. One references is the album's own website, and the other is a first-person blog page by the artist. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-I agree with Eddie Blick, I've done some searching and can't find further independent sources and so I agree with the proposal to delete the article.Gsbhle (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - combining the name of the album with Alex Heffes, produces very little in searches. Certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Nothing in the article indicates it passes WP:NALBUM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Catholic Church—Western Rite[edit]

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

Article about non-notable church, lacks basic information, has no references Bistropha (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a Google books source, [68], which I have added to the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be a self-published book, which could exclude it as a "reliable source". [69] -- Bistropha (talk) 06:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have almost no sources for verifiable information from RS on this group.--Jahaza (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources, nothing widely written across different media. Maybe something in the future, but for now, WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CMKLR1. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CCX832[edit]

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

Seems to have been discontinued ^[1] before Phase II, no hits regarding human studies found on PubMed or Clinicaltrials.gov. No WP:MEDRS sources found. No structure found on ChemSpider or PubChem, so it might meet WP:A1. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is still being used as an investigational compound^[2]^[3]^[4] and is listed on the Guide to Pharmacology database as the only example of a CMKLR1 antagonist^[5]. Given that there aren't alternative tools at present for targetting this receptor, it seems like a helpful tool. Perhaps it could be merged to the receptor it targets. Klbrain (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1]
^ Ramos-Junior, ES; Leite, GA; Carmo-Silva, CC; Taira, TM; Neves, KB; Colón, DF; da Silva, LA; Salvador, SL; Tostes, RC; Cunha, FQ; Fukada, SY (28 December 2016). "Adipokine Chemerin Bridges Metabolic Dyslipidemia and Alveolar Bone Loss in Mice". Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. PMID 28029186.
^ Kennedy, AJ; Yang, P; Read, C; Kuc, RE; Yang, L; Taylor, EJ; Taylor, CW; Maguire, JJ; Davenport, AP (14 October 2016). "Chemerin Elicits Potent Constrictor Actions via Chemokine-Like Receptor 1 (CMKLR1), not G-Protein-Coupled Receptor 1 (GPR1), in Human and Rat Vasculature". Journal of the American Heart Association. 5 (10). PMID 27742615.
^ Darios, ES; Winner, BM; Charvat, T; Krasinksi, A; Punna, S; Watts, SW (1 August 2016). "The adipokine chemerin amplifies electrical field-stimulated contraction in the isolated rat superior mesenteric artery". American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology. 311 (2): H498-507. PMID 27371688.
^ "chemerin receptor | Chemerin receptor | IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY". www.guidetopharmacology.org.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I suppose treating it as a pharmacology research tool instead of an investigational drug means it needn't be WP:MEDRS compliant and needn't be notable as a drug; and your sources should be enough to establish general notability. Pity there isn't a structure available. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to its biological target, CMKLR1, since its main use is study of that receptor. Doesn't really meet N on its own, and WP is not a catalog of reagents. Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support that. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hani King[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, subject is not notable MassiveYR ♠ 13:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that he is notable: he has been mentioned by RS sources such as the BBC and Eastern Eye newspaper (see my recent edits) HelgaStick (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NERO International[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of Notability. Previous discussion did not generate a result, and present searches have revealed no additional notable references. Binarywraith (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources including Philly.com, Dragon (magazine), as well as The Boston Globe which I found in the previous AFD but did not have access to. I will try to find more, too. BOZ (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A copy of the Dragon (magazine) article can be found here : https://annarchive.com/files/Drmg173.pdf, and is both 26 years old and substantially about a different organization than the present NERO International. Binarywraith (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Philly.com article also lacks any substantial information regarding Nero International, mentioning it in a single short paragraph which reads "One of the first big LARP groups formed in the United States is NERO LARP. Started in 1988 by Ford Ivey in Boston, Mass., NERO LARP is a medieval-fantasy group that currently has over 45 chapters, according to the group’s website." Binarywraith (talk) 05:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple RS'es and WP:NTEMP are more compelling than the arguments for deletion. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More sources: Ferndale MI Metro Times and Atlas Obscura each appear to be reliable and cover the company substantially, in the context of its products. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has more than one RS, hence passes GNG Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Horse Spitfire[edit]

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

Unnotable Spitfire: the first reference credits it with just one enemy aircraft and no famous pilots. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing anything here that shows this particular aircraft is notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Info contained therein might be added to the Lloyd's Bank and Supermarine Spitfire articles. Mjroots (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - presentation aircraft are not that unusual and I dont see anything that makes this one noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 07:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as stand alone article; not notable enough and add info for a mention in the Supermarine Spitfire article. Kierzek (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ThatWasEpic[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. An unremarkable YouTube channel / personality; significant coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail not found, mostly tabloid-like coverage of the pranks. Not encyclopedically relevant at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks significant and in-depth coverage needed to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find additional English language sources (though searching for "Juan Gonzalez" is a pain - too common - needed filtering to youtube / video/ pranks/ etc.).Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep Perfectly notable, you can find articles and videos including an interview. Essay "TOOSOON"?! then when it's not too soon I may not be alive or have internet access again to write a new article for my favorite youtubers, I helped spread the word, laughter helps depression and stuff, btw quality in chosen over quantity and fyi I don't get paid. Your perspective is different than mine, I see the content and how they're important for the people who need and you see how much money he makes or he doesn't have enough subscribers. Mjbmr (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree with Mjbmr. This article subject has significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. A simple google search would suffice to show any non-biased person that this article subject passes WP:GNG, and therefore the article should be retained in the encyclopedia. Antonioatrylia (talk) 03:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient in-depth independent coverage in RS. MB 04:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not that there aren't plenty of sources out there. The problem is finding in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have spent quite a while searching the internet and a number of news databases and I cannot find anything which really counts as significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Therefore, as it stands I don't believe this article satisfies the general notability guideline. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Breitfuss[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The only substantial coverage is this about his ascent of Everest but that is in a local newspaper. Other sources are brief mentions and searches did not find anything better. Off-wiki evidence confirms that this was created for pay. SmartSE (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage required to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. hospitality awards are hardly noteworthy. climbing Everest in itself does not grant automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though not struck through, the editor who remains the sole delete !vote is "fine" with keeping - and the nominator has effectively withdrawn this. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Nwoye[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG no in depth coverage that I can find. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not exist on Nigeria Federal Assembly website from what I saw. That alone is enough to delete. If that can't be trusted, I don't trust anything else here. Almost tempted to believe this might fit under CSD-G3 due to that. South Nashua (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Nashua he's listed at the bottom of the first page of this document on that website, so certainly doesn't meet G3. Valenciano (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Valenciano: That document couldn't be opened. If he's a former member of parliament, that's fine. It didn't say "former" in the article. South Nashua (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject easily meets WP:POLITICIAN as a former member of the Nigerian parliament, which can be verified in sources which cover him in depth such as here or here. He gets considerable coverage of his background here and interviewed here as part of his defection to another party. I easily found lots of similar sources confirming him as a candidate for the governship of his state, for example this one. Valenciano (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had dismissed those as blog posts. Theroadislong (talk) 12:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. I only see a single wordpress post there. This, in Vanguard, one of Nigeria's largest newspapers, is clearly covering him in detail, is not a blog and confirms that he's a member of the House of Representatives. He clearly does meet WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either ... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." The guideline in question is people, under which there's WP:POLITICIAN which includes "members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." In this case, membership of the national legislature of the world's seventh most populous country passes that very clearly. Valenciano (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm happy for you to make a non admin closure if you like. Theroadislong (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BADNAC, I can't do that since I've commented here. Valenciano (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator has essentially withdrawn per a later comment, but a delete !vote remains in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing above indicates he meets WP:NPOL as a member or former member of a national legislature. AusLondonder (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crepon (surname)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate mixture of distortion, fantasy and misunderstanding, with no reliable source. Crepon was not a surname of anyone named. Rather it was a place that was granted to the brother of the duchess of Normandy, and hence she has traditionally been called Gunnora de Crepon, meaning nothing more than "from Crepon" (even though she wasn't). Her grandnephew was only known as William son of Osborn (usually represented as Fitz Osbern, Fitz being the standard English rendering of the Norman-French fils = "son of", not "of" as is stated in the article), never Crepon. The names given the great-grandfather, grandfather and father of Gunnora, Roricon, Rainulf and Herbastus, are all completely made up, while the supposed grandmother, "Princess Gunnora of Denmark" is nothing but a confused rendering of Duchess Gunnora herself, who late fraudulent pedigrees claimed was daughter of a King of Denmark. The only sources are a bar chart showing the prevalence by country of people with the Crepon surname (cited only to claim that there are 93 people with the surname today), and a geni.com genealogy page for William Fitz Osbern that calls him Crepon based on someone else's personal genealogy web page. Neither is a reliable source.

Basically, the only verifiable, accurate material on the whole page is the biographical summaries of William Fitz Osbern and Gunnora, covered in more detail on their respective pages, and the genealogical descent of William from Gunnora's brother. Given we also have pages for the intervening generations, Osbern the Steward and Herfast de Crepon, there seems no need for any of it.

A time may come when we want a Crepon (surname) page that deals with modern people with the surname, but it would have to start from scratch as these people have no genealogical connection to the Norman barons who held the town. There also may come a time when we have a page on Gunnora's family, given that the Robert of Torigny wrote about her siblings and nieces and there have been a half-dozen scholarly studies addressing them, but it would likewise need to be started from scratch based on this scholarship and be given a different name, so I see no benefit in retaining the current material for either of these possible future pages. Agricolae (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (which is excellent and doesn't leave much to say). Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Srnec (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

But consider submitting the AfD nomination itself to AfC. TimothyJosephWood 13:20, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DElete for reasons given by nom. Articles like this are typically list articles for people with the surname, which we allow for dab purposes (as we do not allow surname categories). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar Satenstein[edit]

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

I don't believe this meets Wikipedia notability criteria for biographies. She had relationships with some famous people and influenced a fictional character, but neither of those facts resulted in significant coverage in reliable sources (just brief mentions and "did you know"-type trivia). ... discospinster _talk 02:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The only coverage I can find about her is when she's mentioned in passing in articles about Lars Ulrich or Matt Damon. Pburka (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a public figure and academic. HesioneHushabye (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person is basically the personification of WP:TRIVIA, and the sum of passing mentions about others who are notable and happen to be tangentially related to her do not equal notability. TimothyJosephWood 13:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTINHERITED. She almost certainly has a Bacon number and a Sabbath number, but alas no Erdos connection. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete not inherited. Lack of independent sources with significant discussion of her. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Smith_&_Wesson_M&15_Rifle-1] "Smith & Wesson M&15 Rifle". Retrieved 15 November 2014.

[http://www.outdoorhub.com-2] "Smith & Wesson Supplies M&P Rifles to Maricopa County Sheriff's Office". Outdoorhub.com. Retrieved 15 November 2014.

[3] [1]

[4] Ramos-Junior, ES; Leite, GA; Carmo-Silva, CC; Taira, TM; Neves, KB; Colón, DF; da Silva, LA; Salvador, SL; Tostes, RC; Cunha, FQ; Fukada, SY (28 December 2016). "Adipokine Chemerin Bridges Metabolic Dyslipidemia and Alveolar Bone Loss in Mice". Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. PMID 28029186.

[5] Kennedy, AJ; Yang, P; Read, C; Kuc, RE; Yang, L; Taylor, EJ; Taylor, CW; Maguire, JJ; Davenport, AP (14 October 2016). "Chemerin Elicits Potent Constrictor Actions via Chemokine-Like Receptor 1 (CMKLR1), not G-Protein-Coupled Receptor 1 (GPR1), in Human and Rat Vasculature". Journal of the American Heart Association. 5 (10). PMID 27742615.

[6] Darios, ES; Winner, BM; Charvat, T; Krasinksi, A; Punna, S; Watts, SW (1 August 2016). "The adipokine chemerin amplifies electrical field-stimulated contraction in the isolated rat superior mesenteric artery". American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology. 311 (2): H498-507. PMID 27371688.

[7] "chemerin receptor | Chemerin receptor | IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY". www.guidetopharmacology.org.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]