Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 December	9 December >

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 keep. This is not a right place to nominate a redirect for deletion. Also, the proposer's rationale is unclear (what does not exist? What should be in all caps?). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third intifada[edit]

As it does not exist yet, it does not need to exist. Also, it's likely to be all caps. Wakari07 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This AfD has not been set up correctly. In addition this a redirect not an article so its not even using the correct item. This page should redirect to 2014 Jerusalem unrest, which as the first sentence clearly indicates, has been called by this name. - Galatz ^Talk 17:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm in agreement with Galatz. This term is used in 2014 Jerusalem unrest and can be a target for the redirect. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:03, 8 December 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) -- HindWiki^Connect 00:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Thayer[edit]

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

Only coverage in very niche magazines and simple listings. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes verifiability and notability. Specialist magazines are a valid source, as we don't expect all topics to be in national mainstream pubs. Otherwise entire topics like pro wrestling, darts and heavy metal might disappear from the site overnight.Egaoblai (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I sourced her art that's in the permanent collection of several museums. She has work in the Smithsonian, the De Young Museum, the Museum of Contemporary Craft, the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, the Racine Art Museum and the Newark Museum. She passes CREATIVE easily. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTIST #4(d): is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Mduvekot (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing WP:ARTIST, her work being kept at collection six notable museums. Also the referenced magazine is not niche and the writer of the referenced story is an award-wining author–Ammarpad (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:ARTIST with her works being held in several museums as outlined above. Antonioatrylia (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly passing WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:07, 14 December 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. Sock votes discarded, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Lemaire[edit]

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

This person appears not to be notable by our standards. The references in the article appear trivial in the extreme – I don't immediately see even one independent reliable source with in-depth cover of the subject. A G-news search does yield some hits – according to Le Figaro, he was imprisoned for aggravated corruption and aggravated assault of minors in October 2016; however, I don't find any confirmation of this report in any other mainstream news source. Even if the sexual abuse allegation proves to be true and documented, it does not make him notable. I can't see why we need an article on him.

Note: this is not the Benjamin Lemaire who started 'Le vin tout simplement', nor the sixteen-year-old cyclist of the same name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I removed a number of "publications" from the article as the publisher was Neverland Editions. Until a couple of hours ago, this page read "Neverland est une jeune maison d'édition indépendante créé par Ben Lemaire, Arthur Manderley et Etienne Charles pour défendre des projets engagés de expérimentaux. Bien que nos publications soient principalement orientées sur la poésie, nous sommes ouverts à tout type d'ouvrage à condition qu'ils aient une plume ..." (if you hurry and search for it on Google you may still see that text). It has since been changed, and the publications re-added to the article by MangoZona. It's really, really hard to imagine that could be a co-incidence ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another note: I've now also nominated for deletion Lilly Wood and The Prick au Trianon, about a video apparently made by Lemaire (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Wood and The Prick au Trianon). I assume that non-notable video is what MangoZona has referred to below as "1 notable feature accepted in WP"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of indepth sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1 notable feature accepted in WP, and 4 majors sources (TeleStar, Slate, Gala, 20 Minutes, all big french medias) MangoZona (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)— MangoZona (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep secondary sources are present Ninobalto222 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)— Ninobalto222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. What the nomination says. (And if he is an "emerging" whatever, then let's wait till he has emerged.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upper reasons, plus this should be rewritten from top to bottom and sources researched again. Too many unverifiable facts and wrong / biased references. Giorgio69 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are there, secondary sources, I see no problem IamAGecko (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)— IamAGecko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Lot of COI here (for and against as fare as I see) but person notable anyway. Liloula2200 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)— Liloula2200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Checkuser note: The following accounts are sock puppets: Liloula2200, IamAGecko, Ninobalto222, and MangoZona. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IamAGecko.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given this new information, I would like to highlight (apart from the fact that only the puppets seem to be ok with keeping the article) that 95% of the contribution to this article were made by these sock puppets, given a good information on its unreliability as well as its not notableness. Giorgio69 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 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 as the subject passes WP:GEOLAND (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 00:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhey pind[edit]

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

This should be deleted due to a lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck1738 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Shekhe Pind per the consensus of the previous AfD debate. Legally recognized settlements are notable per WP:GEOLAND regardless of size. According to Census of India, the 2011 population was 487.[1] • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. I agree with Gene93k that if it is kept the article should be moved to the correct spelling (which should have been done after the last AfD). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND.There is mention of the place in the some mention PUDA cancels flat scheme The Tribune ,Here its postal code is 144025.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 15 December 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) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Murciano[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it fails notability guidlines per WP:GNG and also fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. There have been other pages, such as for actress Kelly McCormack, which have been deleted for this same reason. Wikipedia does not have pages for actors merely because they exist. Almost all of the sources used are IMDb, YouTube, or WP:BLOGS and zero reliable source coverage that meets the Wikipedia standards… After a Google search of my own, I was not able to find any more significant coverage to assert notability. Reliable source coverage supporting a credible notability claim per WP:NACTOR is necessary for such a page to exist on Wikipedia. Kim Leung (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The roles seem to be minor, coverage largely lacking (the one interview that's in there is a website interview based on his having done one day of work of Odd Squad.) The Young Entertainer Awards do not seem to have gained significant notability (as witness the lack of a Wikipedia page for them.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only production he was in was a TV show where he "guest starred" which is almost never a significant role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect that this article was created by a PR person since this is the only article that the author has created or edited under their user account. The subject may be notable in the future, but not now Rogermx (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rusf10 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey[edit]

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

fails WP:NPOL, mayors of a town of about 40,000 people are not notable. Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That guide is for creating individual articles on mayors, not lists. The guide makes no mention of a cutoff in population. --RAN (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No there is not a cutoff. However, the guidelines state that they must eithier have 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. In this case, No OR 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.- Outside of local news, this is not the case 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".- In this case, that is true, it does not--Rusf10 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"significant press coverage" does not exclude statewide or local coverage. --RAN (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list should not exist because the contents of it are not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mayors of Teaneck who are not notable for any other reason:

Keep all the GNG says if they have sufficient references they are notable. I have a feeling this is a personal issue. There is also no requirement to be notable for multiple things. --RAN (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources is not the issue, its notability. Yes, there is plenty of local press coverage here. And I do not have any personal issues with you, so I don't know where that's coming from.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant press coverage" does not exclude statewide or local coverage. Notability is determined by sources. The "personal" was about the city, not about you and me. -- --RAN (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I misunderstood. But no I don't have anything against Teaneck, its a nice town.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also sourcing is an issue in the John Abraham article, there are none. And most of the others the only reliable source is basically an obituary. --Rusf10 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Abrams article was just a two sentence stub so I redirected it to the list and incorporated the text there. I have no objection to expanding it in the future. --RAN (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reverted the redirecting; please don't blank/redirect pages that are the subject of an active AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep all and relist separately. This is a train wreck. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Faulty nomination. Original nom of the list is based on notability for individuals. Addition of individuals is based on "because they are mayors of Teaneck who are not notable for any other reason," which is obviously incorrect even just looking at the leads of the articles. No objection to speedy renomination of individuals. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- there seems to be objection to the bundling of these nominations. I figure that they were related pages, so I nominated together to avoid clutter. I therefore will withdraw this nomination and renominate each page separately.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 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 delete. Blatant hoax. Deleted. Jujutacular (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lanternsaurus[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources on Google or Google Scholar that support the existence of this dinosaur. So, as it is currently unreferenced, I propose that it be deleted until it can be better referenced. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:32, 8 December 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 Cookie dough. This should be a selective merge. The target article already has a section on this, and WP:UNDUE is a concern. Surprisingly, theres also a consensus to not leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Safety of Eating Raw Cookie Dough[edit]

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

Subject is unencylopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge~~/Redirect~~ - To Cookie dough. I don't know that the subject is inherently unencyclopedic, but I also don't see a compelling reason that this should be a stand alone article when it could very well help fill out the main article which leaves much to be desired. No prejudice toward spinning off again if the main article eventually become too cumbersome. GMG ^talk 20:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike redirect per points raised by User:BD2412 that I should have but didn't consider. GMG ^talk 22:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article could be better obviously, but the topic itself seems completely fine if that's the issue. the topic is notable and in my opinion is different enough from 'Cookie dough' to constitute its own article. I just went to the Cookie dough article and added a see also section with a link to The Safety of Eating Raw Cookie Dough. That hopefully should be fine enough. And for anyone who without reading the article will come to this discussion and claim that the article is bias just because this topic could easily be made into a bias article, I can tell you from reading it that it's not. Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the subject at all. My only concern is that it seems to be a definite subordinate topic to that of cookie dough, and it doesn't seem that the main article is developed enough to warrant a WP:SPINOFF. GMG ^talk 21:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Doesn't deserve its own article, all can be stated in Cookie dough article. We don't have separate article for safety of eating raw eggs, chicken, beef, etc., nor should we.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, this is not a reasonable topic (or title) for an article. A selective merge would be OK if there is high-quality content to merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - To Cookie dough. No redirect, as the capitalization of this title is unlikely as a search term, at least. bd2412 T 21:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - No reason for this unnecessary content fork. Merging the content entirely would be WP:UNDUE so it is best for it to be selective. All we need is concise paragraph, maybe two if the sources permit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, just possibly, Merge. This isn't a stand-alone subject, and is unlikely to ever become one. Anmccaff (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with cookie dough. Vorbee (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cookie dough. No redirect necessary (as per bd2412). = paul2520 (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with cookie dough. WP:SNOW TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cookie dough article has a succinct section on health concerns. There is not much that the content from this article can improve on in my opinion. As a standalone content fork, the The Safety of Eating Raw Cookie Dough article is not necessary to reduce the length of the cookie dough article. Finally, as BD2412 notes there is no need for a redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 16 December 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. ansh 666 02:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L.I.G.H.T. Christian Academy[edit]

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

Fails notability with no reliable sources. Please note that search engines may include, because of ignoring punctuation marks, several other schools with a similar name for example in the USA: Texas, Missouri etc. Mramoeba (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Absolutely no signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 10 December 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) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie ONOFF[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources about this gallery. Rogermx (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Rogermx (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH fail and corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the refs cited don’t appear to mention the gallery and I couldn’t find any other RS. NB my German is reasonable but not fluent. Mramoeba (talk) 18:40, 15 December 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. Nomination withdrawn, all votes to keep J04n(talk page) 01:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rafidison[edit]

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

What we have here is a former member of the National Assembly of Madagascar which would meet NPOLITICIAN if we could verify it but is now an unreferenced BLP. I did, what I consider to be, an exhaustive web search and found nothing but Wiki-mirrors. The original external link no longer works and even checked the Way Back Machine with no luck. If we are going to require that all BLPs have sources this needs to be deleted. I will happily withdraw this nomination if a source is located. J04n(talk page) 20:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 20:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 20:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's noted here as part of a delegation. Describes him as an MP representing Morombe which is consistent with what our entry says. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Florida Army's link, but work definitely needs to be done. South Nashua (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a huge pass of the notability guidelines for politicians. Madagascar is a major country, and we would keep him even if he was in the legislature of the much less importannt by any measure Mauritius. I am confident more sources exist in either Malagasy or French, actually probably both. One might have to peruse libraries in Madagascar to find such sources. I would like to see the article state which dates he served in the National Assembly, and even who preceded and succeeded him. However Wikipedia is a work in progress, and we do not throw out articles because we cannot currently get them to have a minimal amount of useful information. As long as there is enough sourcing to verify that someone was in fact part of a national assembly, we keep the article. We Even keep the article if an indepth search reveals we will probably only even have their name appearing on one listing of the members of the national assembly of that place. For the same reasons we keep articles on kings for whom we know little more than their name, at least as long as their being real historical figures can be verrified, and in some cases even when the authenticity of the information on them is in dispute.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Member of the National Assembly. Needs to be expanded, but this one's easy. Scanlan (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination: agree with everything said above, now that there is a source to verify the page it should be kept. Thank you J04n(talk page) 14:50, 11 December 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 John Conyers. General consensus for a "redirect" closure. (non-admin closure) f e minist 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Conyers III[edit]

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

I created this to be a redirect because people interested in the subject should find something. Instead, an article was attempted from it that so clearly does not meet WP:GNG that a discussion should not be necessary, but yet here we are. He fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. The only sources that cover him in any depth only address an arrest, so that's a BLP issue. To be clear, I want this to be redirected back to his fathers' article, as I had established it. I'm disappointed this process is necessary for such a clearly non-notable case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- at least for now. Not only has he not won an election, he hasn't even officially announced he is running. Otherwise, he is not notable and notability certainly isn't inherited from his father.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect - I agree with the OP, but I don't feel a week-long discussion should be necessary. The redirect is to a related topic and to discourage re-creation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't want to initiate a week-long discussion on this either, but an editor reverted my redirecting this to his father's article, and there's no better mechanism to have this discussion than AfD, even though deletion isn't what I'm looking for. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no reason to redirect at this point. A redirect might be worthwhile if Conyers wins the primary, but at this point he is a person who is not even for sure going to be on the ballot. I do think this primary will be another that will illustrate why Michigan should have run-off primaries, but we will see. Short of winning the election, Conyers will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect I agree with the sentiment of Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, and this is not (yet) notable for a standalone article. —cnzx (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect or delete. This is a plausible search term, but a person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a prospective candidate in a future congressional primary. Even being a confirmed candidate in the primary still isn't a notability criterion per se, and even winning the primary and thereby getting on the general election ballot still isn't grounds for a standalone Wikipedia article — to pass WP:NPOL, a person has to actually win the general election and thereby hold the office, not just run as a candidate. And until that happens, the only other way a candidate qualifies for an article is to properly demonstrate that he was already notable enough for one for some reason entirely independent of the candidacy, but this makes no other claim of preexisting notability for any other reason. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day 2018 if he wins the seat, but absolutely nothing here already gets him a standalone BLP today. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 14 December 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) -- HindWiki^Connect 00:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Paronto[edit]

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

All of the sources in the page are promotional, and it fails WP:NSOLDIER and WP:GNG. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is the co-author of a bestselling book and a main subject of of a wide release movie. Sources include Herald-Mail Media and USA Today affiliate Greatt Falls Tribune which are two reliable sources covering him that are not promotional and Paronto is the subject which demonstrates WP:GNG. A simple google search shows many sources and hits. Certainly he Played an important role in a significant military event covered in multiple, reliable sources and easily satisfies that criteria listed in WP:NSOLDIER. --DHeyward (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like he's got a lot of indepth coverage over multiple years that hasn't been added to the article. Omahan on Benghazi team is happy with '13 Hours' film, which is based on book he co-wrote 2016; Omahan in Benghazi in 2012 faults CIA station chief’s stand-down order 2014; Omaha native reflects on Benghazi attack 2015; Talk by Benghazi veteran stirs social media protest 2017; Paronto shares stories of Benghazi, life battles 2015. A lot is from Omaha, Nebraska but Victoria Advocate is in Texas, and Pilot Tribune and Enterprise is in Pennsylvania, and The Herald-Mail (DHeywards mentions above) is Pennsylvania/Maryland/West Virginia, none of which is anywhere near Omaha, so that meets WP:GNG with no problem. Murphy's Law: Just today, I add an image to the article as proof that can be done without liking or disliking or even knowing anything about the guy; and the very next edit the article gets nominated for deletion, so now I have to research something about him. Sigh. :-P --GRuban (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per DHeyward and Captain Raju. Absolutely meets WP:GNG. After it closes, nominator might need to be trouted for this AfD. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~weak keep revised 18:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC) -- "Notable" for only one thing. Can be mentioned in other places where and if he is significant factor. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done keeping this a while and doing another AfD after awhile if it doesn't get any better. I don't consider the personal history of his family, etc. or other currently cited material sufficient for long term notability. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SPECIFICO Many of our subjects derive their notability from one thing or event. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played a prominent role in the Benghazi event and subsequent books and film. Passes GNG with ease. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but WP:ONEEVENT too. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That coverage is awfully thin though. A note in the family section of a local paper, another promotional little bit basically announcing him as a speaker in a slightly bigger local paper, a few paragraphs in the IJR piece, and a book review. No, I don't think this is a lot. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er - sorry? The sources I posted are, respectively, 20 paragraphs, 70 paragraphs, 17 paragraphs, 40 paragraphs, 40 paragraphs. The 2 in DHeyward's post are 40 paragraphs and 10 paragraphs. Now they're newspaper paragraphs, not Russian novel paragraphs, but still, most of these are non-trivial indepth sources. And yes, they are local papers, but they are local papers unrelated to each other, and local to half a dozen states spread over half the country, and over 4 years. --GRuban (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being covered in depth over numerous WP:RS, this subject easily passes WP:GNG. The article should be retained on wikipedia and expanded not deleted. Lacypaperclip (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator didn't show how the subject failed GNG. As a co-author of best selling book and author another of another book recognized by independent sourcees does surely meet GNG. The reference in the article alone do show this. In addition, the article is now greatly improved from this version with 4 refs when nominating to now current version with additional content and improved sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the references are either promotional appearances related to his speaking tour or right-wing websites. Can you cite any mainstream news or analysis sources? SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times has 3 articles.[2], and here's one of a few CNN refs and here's one of a dozen or USAToday pieces. They show notability over many years and different topics. Here, for example, is his second book unrelated to the Benghazi attack being reviewed in USAToday as a best-seller. National coverage in addition to local coverage over multiple topics. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO:, I come to respond with the sources, but there's already similar and better response. Pinging, in case not watching. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to meet GNG and possibly AUTHOR - probably due to his involvement in an incident that was a political scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Post-Benghazi activities appear to have enough coverage to overcome BLP1E. ValarianB (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:29, 12 December 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) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lamia[edit]

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

This article is really about Lamia's combat outfit - Lamia is incidental to it. Suggest deletion under WP:BIO or renaming article with the name of his unit. Rogermx (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't even tell us Lamia's rank and I get no hits on Lamia in Google or Newspapers.com. The unit is too small to be recognized; I don't see renaming as an option. This reeks of being a WP:MEMORIAL page.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom--IamIRAQI (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not everybody who happened to participate in D-Day needs a memorial page. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither the individual nor the unit rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not as clear cut as presented above, the notability claim (per WP:SOLDIER comes from the Legion of Honour award - which can be sourced from - [3] [4] - however it seems this was bestowed on a rather random group of veterans in 2003 that were still alive at the time. Sourcing in a BEFORE does not show he meets GNG - so presumption of notability, per SOLDIER (all be it the legion of honour award having issues in general due to amount of bestowals), is not enough.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find coverage in newspapers.com or elsewhere for Nick or Nicholas Lamia. It seems to me that which unit he participated with fails WP:V and some of this fails WP:OR, and there isn't sufficient RS about him to clearly pass WP:NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:33, 12 December 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) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Delgadillo[edit]

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

Vice President at a major company. Listed on a list of "Executive and Emerging Leaders" which is of course not enough for notability. The article previously contained a copyvio from the company website,whichwe gave no other indication of 1notability No significant sources available.--there is material in Google News about whatI think to be others of the name, but if by any chance it is the same person it's entirely notices of running in half-matrathons and the like. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vice presidents in companies are a dime a dozen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Looks more like a résumé or the type of bio one would expect on the company's website. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:27, 11 December 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. ansh 666 02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shrilk[edit]

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

This and the related article Micromasonry, also nominated here, are both promotional hype about inventions by Javier Fernandez, and are about things that happened 6 years ago that never came to be. Both were created by the IP Special:Contributions/161.116.100.92 and then elaborated on by the SPA User:Alt1979, and both are based on the media going gaga over science press releases. I have merged/redirected the useful content in Shrilk to Chitosan#Bioprinting already. An IP from the university where the person who invented this works now reverted the redirect, and reverted the speedy deletion nomination I did after that, and also left me this message. So here we are. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Shrilk is referred, for example, to as “one of the materials that will change the future of manufacturing” (Scientific American), a “Supermaterial” (National Geographic), and has been chosen (with graphene) one of the “five material that could change the word” (The Guardian). It caused all that "hype" because was the first artificial demonstration of the reproduction of the natural synergies in structural biomaterials. A key factor for their generalized use in technology. The "promotional hype" is actually a personal and strongly biased opinion unsupported by any data or reference. Actually there is no such "hype" or interest decrease on the topic. In addition to its scientific and technological relevance, it is recommended to keep this page due to the large number of citations on printed and digital media to Shrilk, included most main media outlets (see "Find sources" links at the heading of this page).

This year this "promotional hype about something that happened 6 years ago that never came to be" as the user Jytdog describes it, was chosen by the Launch foundation (NASA, USAID, the U.S. Department of State, NIKE...) as one of the leading technologies for a sustainable world.

The user Jytdog has been informed through the editions as well as in his user page on the importance of this material in the field of bioinspired engineering, but he seems unreasonable and motivated by a personal opinion on the time required for a technology to transcend the laboratory environment. His argumentation is based on who has collaborated on the article, ignoring the discussion on the actual content of the article. He is repeatedly ignoring that the success of a technology or the lack of practical use of a scientific achievement, are not included as reasons for deletion on Wikipedia's policies. Ignoring also that Shrilk has triggered a transformation of plastic industry and packaging (references are deliberatively chosen among those with less than a year), even if the speed of that transformation seems to be unsatisfactory for the user proposing the deletion of this article.

The user has been informed multiple times, and he has repeatedly vandalized the page redirecting it to a different article. Additionally, he seems confused on the nature of the material, which describes as "bioprinted" on the Chitosan article where he wants to merge this. Shrilk is not bioprinted, is produced by sequential layer deposition by film casting as is described in this article. As a result of the lack of understanding of this user on the topic of this article and those on the same area, there is an unintended damage to Wikipedia's content. Due to the obvious lack of expertise and the biased negative opinion of the user, it is suggest a ban for further vandalism of this page and related topics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC) — 202.94.70.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

formatting fixed, sign unsigned Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the bioprinting thing. I moved the content into the Chitosan#Research section and improved it a bit in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the IP from where this is written, I suggest the user Jitdog to carefully read and understand this Wikipedia article to enhance the quality of the discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for the IP address you are using, which is here: User talk:202.94.70.60. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the claims from the 2010-2011 press releases fail verifiability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

→All claims from press releases are based on peer-reviewed scientific articles published on top scientific journals and based on scientific data. All references to the scientific articles are included on the press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability doesn't go away over time.Egaoblai (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of notability, then or now. --bonadea contributions talk 14:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are the articles in Nat Geo, The Guardian and others not a sign of notability? Egaoblai (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be enduring coverage. The refs are clustered in time; the press sometimes picks up on science press releases and runs with them (we talk about this in WP:MEDREV for example) and so some refs were indeed generated. (Content about this stuff is not subject to MEDRS; health claims about uses would be if there were any.) But this should not really have been created per WP:NOTNEWS and indeed this all it has turned out to be so far - there is a WP:TOOSOON aspect here.

These articles appear to me to have been created in an effort at promotion and we are not here to promote anything or anyone, per WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick search of secondary sources playing with the made-up rule of "enduring" coverage (inexistent rule on WP:NOTE). Google search of Shrilk returns more than 72,000 results only in English:

- National Geographic, 2013: (Link)

- The Guardian and CNN. 2014: (Link1) (Link2)

- BBC and Popular Science, 2015: (Link1) (Link2)

- Huffington Post, 2016: (Link)

- The New York Times, 2017: (Link)

All of them across time and on high quality independent secondary sources with specialized editors on the topic of this article. No press releases or picking of press releases included. For more (there are literally thousands of mentions to Shrilk on the media): google.

Additionally those claiming WP:TOOSOON (a rule hardly aplicable for science and technology) seems to be mixing the concepts of notability WP:GNG (which this article pass with flying colors as per WP standards of WP:Secondary) with commercialization. There are many materials which are not commercialized or applied such as graphene or metamaterials, but still are notable because their impact on the field. Also note that age doesn’t change notability, that is why obsolete technologies like the Walkman or LaserDisc have a WP page. Therefore, while this Shrilk has a demonstrated 'endured, coverage, the ad-hoc request of it seems inappropriate for this discussion (Maybe it is for those claiming WP:NOTNEWS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.77.60 (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial discussion is of the essence. Do you see how the mentions get more dwindling with time? the 2014 refs are one paragraph, and ditto the 2015 huff-po blog (ahem). listicles really. The 2017 NYT ref is even more passing. Substantial discussion over time, this is not. says yoda (btw, laserdisk and walkman were actual products, and the walkman was very impactful. Shrilk is still very early stage, un-commercialized technology. we do wish you all the best in translating this science to the marketplace, but WP is not a vehicle to help with that) Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's is what you got wrong all the time. Shrilk is NOT a technology and it is not in early stage. As the article mentions, Shrilk is a material, first of its kind, reproducing the synergies on natural materials with its own molecules. That is why it was impactful. Nobody in the field thinks that Shrilk is a technology as nobody thinks graphene is a technology. Also I believe you still are mixing the concepts of notability and commercialization/application, and the "Do you see how the mentions get more dwindling with time?" has already being demonstrated false the first time you mentioned it with a link to the google searches of the material for the last five years (see above). You are just ignoring the data and supporting subjective arguments at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last reply here. Sure it is a material.... that is unfeasible commercially. As the NYT says "it is not yet cost-competitive." So it is a nifty trick so far with lots of potential, but is not actually good for anything. Yet. It may be one day. Hence the WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still are mixing the concepts of commercialization with notability. The notability of a material is not limited to its commercial success. A material can be notable (and worth of a Nobel prize) because its unexpected and/or outstanding properties. The obvious example of graphene has been given to you multiple times in this discussion, and you still prefer to ignore it. Graphene has all the characteristics you are describing for WP:TOOSOON: It can't be produced in large amounts, doesn't have application, it is not cost competitive. It still is EXTREMELLY relevant in the field, and worth of a Nobel Prize, because its properties. As in the case of Shrilk, Graphene might never be applied, but its notability doesn't depend on that. And it is not the only one, many materials are relevant because what they represent in the field and their rare/unexpected properties, not because the feasibility of its application. Here you have a list of some of them, all fitting in what you consider a unsuitable material to be in WP, all of them with a well deserved WP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two (really) last replies. Graphene is important scientifically - it was the basis for a Nobel. And the first graphene products are now on the market, admittedly 13 years after it was isolated and characterized (the work that won the Nobel). So there is no comparison, and especially not on the level of basic science. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting for the same reasons as this was closed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jytdog is purposely ignoring the information that other users are providing. They have already remarked that notability doesn’t go away with time, that is why there are articles about obsolete technologies/achievements. However Jytdog still remarking that the "long" age (6 years) since the laboratory invention of Shrilk makes it suitable for deletion.

Jytdog refers to "clustering references" while ignoring those links provided by other users to Shrilk-related searches on internet, being those constant for the last 5 years. Other users have also provided recent reports from main governmental agencies and articles in NY times from 5 months ago. All of them ignored by Jytdog in his argumentation.

Jytdog talks about promotion of something, but he doesn't specify of what; there is no company or product mentioned in the article. His sole argument to support "promotion" is that someone from the same institution as the inventor is opposing an arbitrary deletion of an article created in 2013 with contributions from +20 people. It is hard to believe that someone needs to promote with couple of paragraphs on Wikipedia a scientific achievement which is covered by National Geographic, Scientific American, The New York Times... and even have several documentaries about it (nothing less than BBC and ARTE). Also it seems that person interested on promoting Shrilk learnt Portuguese to also promote it in other languages.

It has been highlighted that the inference of Jytdog on topics out of his expertise is resulting in destruction of valuable information. His "collaborations" are not different opinions or views on a topic, something that clearly enrich WP, but blatantly erroneous and flawed technical information in technical/scientific articles. One might wonder why Jytdog is doing this and if he is doing it following WP mission or his own personal agenda (see below).

In conclusion Jytdog is neglecting the facts provided by other users, is not backing his personal opinions by any data, and he is trying to force a discussion on COI issues rather than the topic of the article and its notability. In the light of those facts, one might get the idea that the user having a COI with Shrilk is Jytdog and not the user reverting his changes. Even more, a quick check on the user backgorung retuns that Jytdog is banned to edit "other" WP topics. In particular to agricultural chemicals. Considering that Chitosan, the article where Jytdog is trying to merge Shrilk and vandalized including obviously incorrect technical information, it has as main use "agricultural and horticultural" one might argue that he is actually breaking the ban. I believe this should be further investigated and actions taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.193.226.178 (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. The sources are pretty obviously based on press releases, and we have a lot of history showing that the promise in press releases very often fails to materialise. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet ripe for encyclopedia. Encyclopedic content must be well documented by secondary sources. And this Research is not yet to have that. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not (yet) notable; article is a promo-piece. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG: the few mentions I find in large papers are from 2014 and earlier and appear to be press releases. Likely WP:TOOSOON (also reminding me that WP:NOTNEWS may also apply). —Paleo Neonate – 05:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above comments on GNG and sourcing. Probably a good topic for a TED Talk, but not here. --Calton | Talk 10:53, 13 December 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) 19:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rank (ice hockey, born 1982)[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominated - hasn't met WP:NHOCKEY ...PK T(alk) 22:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails criteria as outlined above. Not notable. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:46, 14 December 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 WP:NPASR. While being a sock doesn't immediately disqualify the nomination, it does seem to be fairly bad faith and incorrect to boot. If anyone has any real concerns about the list, please renominate, but for now there's nothing to do here. ansh 666 03:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade[edit]

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

The page cites absolutely no sources and is based off of original research. This is an unnecessary extension of the List of billboard hot 100 chart achievements and milestones page, which is more than sufficient. Sugarpuff888 (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While my siding on this is at best a weak keep (individual articles focusing on the number ones of the individual decades of the Billboard Hot 100's history exist already, like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1980s, etc.), I will make two points here. The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugarpuff888, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CheetaWolf) and in another of the AfDs they filed (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot Country Songs chart achievements), another editor considered they did so on account of retaliatory measures after what occurred in yet another AfD, which was filed by the sockpuppet. My second point is the nominator is under the belief that the page has no sources at all, when that is not true. Some of the material in this article is backed directly by reliable sources, discounting any original research claims for those parts. Some other parts of the article, including the more recent content from the 2010s, could use some sourcing, however. Don't know if this AfD should remain open, as I don't know whether the sockpuppetry angle in itself is grounds for dismissing it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author, it's a WEAK KEEP. It's straight forward, sourced, and doesn't go too deep into meaningless chart statistics like some other "chart achievements" sections, but still possibly an unneeded expansion of List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:25, 15 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB)[edit]

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

Delete Was nominated recently but the original nom withdrew the nomination as was closed as Keep. But, I cannot find any intellectually independent sources. Article is also promotional, fails WP:SPIP. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional and lacking independent sources. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Was nominated recently but the original nom withdrew the nomination as was closed as Keep. But, I cannot find any intellectually independent sources. Article is also promotional, fails WP:SPIP. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH”

-- HighKing⁺⁺ and LibStar see response to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rider_Levett_Bucknall_(RLB)_(2nd_nomination):

Keep The nomination for deletion does not provide justification or support from specific citation *within* the article that substantiates the claims of the nomination other than links to WP policy pages. However, these concerns are addressed in detail below:

1) Re: “I cannot find any intellectually independent sources.”

-Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and Chicago Tribune all meet criteria for intellectually independent sources according to WP:ORGIND “Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as *newspaper articles,* books, television documentaries, websites, and *published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.*”

cf: Wall Street Journal Ref 7: Chen, Stefanos (2017-03-22). "The U.S. Apartment Boom, Measured in Construction Cranes". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-11-30.

cf: Seattle Times Ref 8: ”Seattle has most cranes in the country for 2nd year in a row — and lead is growing". The Seattle Times. 2017-07-11. Retrieved 2017-11-06.

cf: Sydney Morning Herald Ref 23: Cummins, Carolyn (2017-09-29). "There are a lot of cranes in the sky". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2017-11-06.

Further, there are *26* other independent sources covering Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) cited in this article. The above also addresses “References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH” as well, but points below expound on this claim to some extent as well.

2) Re: “Article is also promotional, fails WP:SPIP.”

- This claim has not been substantiated with any specific references to promotional content. It is possible that the article may seem promotional to those unfamiliar with the role of quantity surveying in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) field; however, there are no skyscrapers, olympics, or major architectural achievements without quantity surveying and cost modeling processes. Rider Levett Bucknall’s major project involvement as quantity surveyor (Olympics, Megatall buildings ((Wuhan CTF Centre, soon to be China’s highest skyscraper)), Atlanta Falcons NFL Stadium, and others), and the research function of its analytics and reporting, have both been considered notable enough to be written about by the above cited sources, and numerous others. Notability in this instance, and detailed exposition of the subject matter, supercedes an implication of promotion.

A detailed article about a firm, which is essential to the existence of some of the highest buildings in the world and major sporting venues among other significant cultural objects, should not be deemed promotional simply because it explores a corporation.

WP:SPIP states, “The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.” If the article is "overly promotional" then other significant peer articles on Wikipedia in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industries would fail this test as well. See: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Bechtel, etc.

3) This is speculative, but I am wondering if this article is being nominated for deletion simply because the subject matter seems “boring” on a cursory reading. Or if the nomination is motivated by an idea that: “This is an article about a corporation not widely known, it is therefore promotional.” Further, it seems odd that this page is receiving objection if WP:AUD is considered. WP:AUD states: “The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.” Would argue that the source audiences here are both global and relevant. Certainly any students of AEC would need and seek this information. Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) is a development of trunks within the discourse of AEC and and helps answer the questions:

“What are some notable examples of firms doing quantity surveying work?

“What is the nature of their involvement in the construction and design of significant AEC achievements”?

Thank you to all who have contributed for your service to Wikipedia and for vetting this work. Though my argument above may sound snarky, I do believe this is the kind of discussion that certainly makes Wikipedia a more robust resource. Vincent Wedge (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Vincent Wedge[reply]

Comment Quick responses to your long post. The requirement for two "intellectually independent" references is not satisfied merely by WP:RS. The reference must also contain independent analysis or optinion and not merely namecheck the company or regurgitate quotations from company officers such as the articles you've mentioned. For example, the WSJ article mentions the company once in conjuction with a quotation from an RLB VP. This is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Your other examples fail for the same reasons. The article fails WP:SPIP because there is nothing within the article to indicate notability - its a simple run-of-the-mill company - and providing lists of "services" and "major projects" is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a free company brochure to advertise the company. You must have missed the part that states very clearly that Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Finally, WP:AUD only comes into play if criteria regarding intellectually independent references has been met - it hasn't. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like the company paid someone to write the article - it was created ready made with dozens of references. I checked 10 of the references and none of those indicated notability, they were very run of the mill, promotional, lacking depth or similar. I don't have time to check all of the references - I think that quantity of references is intended to pull the wool over my eyes. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Szzuk There is no need to go ad hominem, here. I am a PhD candidate at the University of Utah. This is not a paid article. Was created out leftover AEC research for my doctoral dissertation. Deletion of the Services and Sectors sections is probably a good idea. -- HighKing⁺⁺ makes a valid point on that count. However there is much left unaddressed in my response to the initial argument for deletion post. Will respond more in a few, but I think the supposition that this is paid is offensive and needlessly incendiary. Vincent Wedge (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Vincent Wedge[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject has not met the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dagra cryptocurrency[edit]

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency sourced entirely to press releases and primary sources with no coverage available and relatively unknown in the crypto world. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:G11, as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as patent nonsense, category two: "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand it, even though the English isn't quite up to par. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi, L3X1. It is good to hear that. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining the one sentence that irritates me the most? "All transactions are immediate and guaranteed because the gateways are blocked by a present transaction." —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Codename Lisa Ah, you had to ask about that one :) I assume it refers to network blocks/blockchains, though that pushes on the bounds of grammar. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, there are other stuff too. For example, the very next sentence: "Coin mining is possible by ordinary computers and video cards." I desparately gazed at this sentence, trying to decide whether to remove it as vandalism or not. Fortunately, I read Bitcoin § Mining later and realized that "mining" is just a misnomer and doesn't have anything in common with, say, mining gold or silver. Later, FleetCommand told me that miners actually do earn something. Armed with all this knowledge, "video card" still trips me. I believe this article is an advertisement written for someone who is totally familiar with the subject of cryptocurrency and Bitcoin. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it doesn't seem to be widely used or notable for any other reason. If it was widely used there would be at least some discussions about it online. Compared to other crypto-currencies, this one seems to be largely unknown.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is outright non notable. No secondary coverage; no evidence of reliable sources report. Primary sources show existence but existence is not notability –Ammarpad (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is CSD A7 stuff. —cnzx (talk) 04:18, 11 December 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) -- HindWiki^Connect 00:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Colombia[edit]

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

No notability and no reliable sources. Bingobro (Chat) 15:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added a few sources. The notability here is borderline but there, in my opinion. Note also that it's almost ludicrously hard to search for sources because "air Colombia" brings up so much content. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching under "air colombia villavicencio" to try and cut down the search, but I still only get social media and company directory listings – it seems those passing mentions in books and articles are all there is. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- sources can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs)

That's not a very good argument – if you think sources can be found, then find them yourself. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Der Speigel is reliable. I looked on Google Maps, and yes, there were a bunch of DC-3s at the claimed airport. I looked up the registration numbers. Notability? The last outpost using these 70-year-old workhorses is fascinating (along with the Israeli Air Force). Rhadow (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough here now that notability is established enough to satisfy. (Ed, next time, might want to consider the sandbox. ) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 9 December 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. ansh 666 03:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lalainia Lindbjerg[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a voice actress. As always, actors are not handed an automatic free WP:NACTOR pass just because roles have been listed -- to be considered notable just for having been in stuff, she needs to be the subject of media coverage about her performances in stuff. But the closest thing there is to sourcing here is the external links to her own Twitter and her profiles on IMDb and the IMDb equivalent for the anime genre, none of which are notability-supporting sources. Again, we require coverage about her, not just cursory verification in comprehensive "all actors" directories that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she does have some news articles as a theatre actress in Vancouver, such as this article: [5] also appears in [6] [7]. Bulma in DBZ Ocean is a significant role, and her role in the Sabrina the Teenage Witch movie as a main antagonist. [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For her roles in DBZ Ocean or Sabrina the Teenage Witch to count as notability claims, she has to be the subject of reliable source coverage about those performances — merely asserting that a role was significant or major is not a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to be the subject of coverage about the role. But the source you've provided for Sabrina is the production company's own self-published website about itself, not a reliable or notability-supporting source. And for the local theatre sources, two of the three sources you provided merely namecheck her existence a single time without being about her — and the one article that is about her is from a local community weekly pennysaver in the context of having one role with the local community theatre, which is neither a notability claim in the first place nor a strong enough source to singlehandedly carry her over WP:GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is junk. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The community one is at least to demonstrate that she has been covered by an independent secondary source. That's not to say her Vancouver theatre work is Wikipedia-notable; it probably isn't. The DBZ shows a starring role in a significant show and the same with the Sabrina film, shows significance not a throwaway background part. But overall this would still be borderline WP:ENT. And please note, I'm not voting for Keep on this article as I personally don't think this is enough. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at my history, you will see that I started it the day that I joined Wikipedia back in 2006 when I was a huge Gundam freak. I have moved on to other things in the subsequent 11 years hence I don't really have any serious attachment to it. If there aren't enough sources to establish notability, by all means delete it. Shaneymike (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no appearances logged at any major anime conventions: [9] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of the three sources identified above, only one is indepth about her, and that would not be enough to pass GNG on its own. Additionally it is a local, human interest type story, and clearly just being the subject of one such story in one of thousands of local papers with pages to fill is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 9 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the sources used in the article make any reference to a "Romance-speaking Europe" existing. Google search for "Romance-speaking Europe" returns almost entirely Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, plus a few offhand mentions that do not treat it as a separate topic. It seems to be basically a Wikipedia construct, and it just duplicates content already found at the main Romance languages article. We wouldn't have an article titled "Chinese-speaking Asia". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an awkward and uncommon term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially when other articles regarding Germanic, Slavic, and Celtic speaking Europe are not deleted Luna935 (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can they be deleted when they don't exist? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST seems to apply here. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - OSE is not policy. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, the phrase seems to appeared in quite a few book results--Prisencolin (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid rationale to keep. Just because "Romance-speaking Europe" appears in search results, it does not mean we should have an article with that title. I could search and find many examples of e.g. a "yellow jumper" but that does not mean we should have an article with that title. You can use a google search to find references, it’s often the best way to do so, but raw search results are meaningless.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JohnBlackburne:, the fact that this term appears in scholarly works suggests that its suitable for inclusion in WP. Also, the table is useful for comparisons between Romance-speaking countries. The Romance languages article is pretty large so it wouldn't fit there.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not a good topic for an article, as can be seen by the article which has almost no content, just a lead and list that enumerates the countries and a brief history of how the Romance languages ended up where they did. But this is all content found in Romance languages, in far more depth and properly in context. There is no need for this to exist as a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBlackburne (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prisencolin. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the content already exists more appropriatly in Romance languages, so this is needless duplication. Reviewing the previous AfDs none was closed because of asserting independent notability of this subject but only appealing to emotion and Keep, I like it. In addition this is largely baze on synthesis and original research of goverment's reports and statistics (90% of the sources used) and this is violation of Wikipedia core policy WP:NOR. No independent sources that show this term (and the concept it means) is discussed in reliable sources or scholarly works. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more book results for "Latin Europe", this is the only page on the Latin Europe DAB page about a geographic region.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This book is not even talking about the subject of deletion. And Just google searching name and seeing it everywhere is not an indication of notability, it has to do with how much content of the book actually talk about the subject directly. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:39, 14 December 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) 19:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tonye Rex Idaminabo[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The awards won are for categories "young", "promising", etc. Probably too soon to have standalone article. Could be redirected to African Achievers Awards. Darreg (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, a lack of WP:SIGCOV, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very non notable. Fails basic WP:GNG for lack of coverage in reliable sources. And case of WP:TOOSOON is clear, the coverage seems to just starts now but not yet to be documented in an encyclopedia–Ammarpad (talk) 07:16, 15 December 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) 19:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROOM 1202[edit]

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

Notability? f e minist 12:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. f e minist 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. f e minist 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: absolutely no evidence of notability, and the line "ROOM 1202 has proven that it is a band to watch, if for any reason because you never know where they will pop up next. Be sure to check www.room1202.com for more information." demonstrates that the whole article is a puff-piece. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable band and in any case pretty much the whole article is a WP:COPYVIO from this page on Soundclick.com Neiltonks (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A promotional vanity page from an SPA editor that appears to be a cut and paste from the band's discontinued website. In trying to assess the notability of the subject I could find no significant third party evidence or any significant achievement. The Inland Empire Award is basically nothing; an "award" bestowed by an article in a defunct small community weekly. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:57, 8 December 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 delete. G3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Brütsin IV[edit]

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

For a composer that is apparently one of the most renowned of his century, there don't appear to be any sources out there about him. Obvious hoax. Melodydove (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: the only hits on Google are mirrors of this page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a hoax. Zero search results and Brütsin doesn't even appear to be a real surname. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Looks like a hoax by Hackmaster. Srnec (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as obvious hoax. A notable composer with no book hits (all I got were hits on a German phrase)? Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if this article is not a hoax, it still gets a name wrong - "Lancastershire" should be "Lancashire". The article currently has no cited references. Vorbee (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Sometimes they are amusing, in this case just boring. Szzuk (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V, seems to be a hoax. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:23, 8 December 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 Cerberus (Martian albedo feature). Merger from history is possible. Sandstein 14:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cerberus Hemisphere[edit]

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

This stub has been sitting unsourced since its creation in 2006, and tagged as such since 2009. A WP:BEFORE search reveals that "Cerberus Hemisphere" was an informal name given to a mosaic of pictures taken by the Viking 1 orbiter in 1980. It is named after the prominent Cerberus dark area. This picture is referenced in a couple of astronomy books from the 1990s. The earliest mention seems to be a 1988/89 report from the NASA planetary geology program,^[1] which names four such picture mosaics as "hemispheres":

The "Valles Marineris Hemisphere" mosaic covers the region from ~30° to 130° longitude, including Valles Marineris, Tharsis Montes, Lunae Planum, and Chryse and Acidalia Planitiae. The "Cerberus Hemisphere" mosaic covers the region from ~140° to 230° longitude, including Elysium, Arcadia and Amazonia Planitiae and ancient cratered highlands. The "Schiaparelli Hemisphere" mosaic covers the region from ~280° to 30° longitude, including Arabia Terra, Syrtis Major Planum, Hellas Planitia and the Oxia Palus area. The "Syrtis Major Hemisphere" mosaic covers the region from ~260° to 350° longitude, including Arabia Terra, Syrtis Major Planum, and Isidis and Hellas Planitiae.

The name "Cerberus Hemisphere" is not included in various modern sources detailing the topography of Mars; it appears to be only an anecdotal name that did not acquire enduring notability independently of this particular picture and mission. Hence my proposal to delete the article as insignificant and potentially misleading. We could possibly quote the book and display the Viking-era pictures in our article about Viking 1.

Sources
^ NASA, Scientific and Technical Information Division (1989). Reports of planetary geology program - 1988. p. 240.

— JFG ^talk 10:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as it is left too long untouched and it doesn't contain any sources at all. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Mars geography; this entry is too small to warrant its own article. Vorbee (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No useful content. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Geography of Mars or some other article. Delete or redirect to Cerberus (Martian albedo feature). I could not find coverage in reliable sources other than the mosaic of pictures. Gulumeemee (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC); edited 04:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage --> Delete. Redirect only helpful if we want to talk about those pictures specifically. No consensus for this yet. — JFG ^talk 01:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good argument. We are probably not going to talk about this picture in the Geography of Mars article, but we might in the Cerberus article. I changed my comment. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would make sense in Cerberus (Martian albedo feature) indeed; I support the redirect there, and documenting the historical picture with a quote from the NASA report. — JFG ^talk 11:17, 11 December 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. – Joe (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Anandharamakrishnan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe the previous AfD reached an erroneous conclusion. The journals with which the subject is associated turn out to be predatory open access, and confer no prestige at all. FRSC is not a prestigious award, it is a box-ticking exercise that can be obtained by any practitioner in the field after a few years. There are no independent biographical sources, and the author of the article has no other significant contributions. This article is likely COI, and is certainly based on inflation of credentials and status. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as in August AfD. Passes WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

"As in August" does nto work, because it did not evaluate the journals. I just did: they are fraudulent. This represents a material change. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would present an analysis to support your assertions. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Comment At least one chunk is a thinly edited copyvio from [10]: "His research ~~endeavours~~ are well documented in ~~the form of highly commendable publications in reputed~~ international journals, 2 International patents and 7 Indian patents. He is also the author of 4 books and 17 book chapters ~~published by coveted publishers~~." XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that fellowship of the Royal Society of Chemistry is not a highly selective honour, so C3 is not met, however I don't understand how C1 is not met. You seem to be saying that the subject of the article publishes in unreputable journals, and while that is a concern, it is possible for a influential paper to be published in a crap journal, what you need to show is that the citations are crap. It would help if you gave an explanation as to why, for example, citations in Food Hydrocolloids, Trends in Food Science & Technology, or Food Engineering Reviews should not be counted towards C1.194.46.226.127 (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is my analysis based on the first page of the gscholar citations for his most cited paper:

Extended content

Utilization of bacterial cellulose in food, Shi et al,

Not open-access in a journal which supports open access.

Stability of nanosuspensions in drug delivery, Wang et al,

Not open-access as above.

Biopolymer-based nanoparticles and microparticles: fabrication, characterization, and application, Joye et al,

Not open-access as above.

Nanotechnology in agro-food: From field to plate, Dasgupta et al,

Not open-access as above.

Nanoscience and nanotechnologies in food industries: opportunities and research trends, Ranjan et al

Not open-acess.

Electrospinning and electrospraying techniques: Potential food based applications, Bhushani & Anandharamakrishnan,

Not open-access in a journal which supports open access.

An overview of ultrasound-assisted food-grade nanoemulsions, Abbas et al,

Not open-access as above.

Fundamentals of electrospinning as a novel delivery vehicle for bioactive compounds in food nanotechnology, Ghorani & Tucker

Not open-access as above.

Microcapsule mechanics: From stability to function, Neubauer et al,

Not open-acess.

Potential bioavailability enhancement of bioactive compounds using food-grade engineered nanomaterials: a review of the existing evidence, Oehlke et al.

Open-acess.

I hope this dispels the notion that the citations are from predatory open-access journals. "Supports open access" does not mean that all articles are open-access, in fact in many of these journals a large majority of articles use the traditional model (for example Food Engineering Reviews has published 171 articles of which 3 were open-access). If the webpage of an article says 'purchase PDF', it is not an open-access article. Keep per WP:PROF#C1. 194.125.38.83 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentions of the subject are not so prevalent as much as they are expected to pass WP:GNG. There are also issues with conflict of interest and copyrights. Orientls (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see no need to pass WP:GNG. The pass is of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- basically self promotion; the journal citations are from open access journals and thus do not help with WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman What is wrong with open-access journals (as long as they are not predatory)? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No discussion took place after previous relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 09:43, 8 December 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 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Kwame Kilpatrick's political career[edit]

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

This is a timeline that is based on a small number of sources, two of which were multiple citations to offsite copyright violations and the rest are 404. There is pretty much nothing here that is not well covered in Kwame Kilpatrick. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for content is similar to that of the main page. I don't see the need for another article for Kwame Kilpatrick's career. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with article on Kwame Kilpatrick. Vorbee (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't honestly think there is anything to merge, everything significant is covered in the main article already as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a content fork that doesn't even contribute any significant new content. Merging would not be useful or practical for the main article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those of us who live or work in the city of Detroit know that one article on King Kwame is enough. Absolutely no reason to have a second article on this crook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete material here is already in the article, where it belongs, so no merge is necessary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 11 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical perception[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Categorical perception

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

Wikipedia is not a free web host for publishing journal articles. [11] duffbeerforme (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has good material in it, and the topic is sufficiently important to warrant representation in Wikipedia. I am satisfied that its appearance in Wikipedia does not violate any copyright based on Harnad's response and the changes to the entry relative to the earlier encyclopedia article on categorical perception. 15:39, 3:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Definitely a legitemate, notable academic topic, based on the sources in the article and through a Google Books search. There's definitely room for cleanup, but I don't think it's necessarily fatal. I've instructed the original contributor to file with OTRS on the copyright issue. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a work of original research. That is not what Wikipedia is for. How many of the sources in the article mention categorical perception, are the there to verify other subjects which are then bought together by original synthesis to build this article? Which of the books hits are about this categorical perception? Regarding the copyright issue, given that this was published in Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science would we also need permission from them? duffbeerforme (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: Please don't be too defensive in order to score cheap point of deleting article you misthought is OR. Not talk of "mentioning," which is ubiquitous (if one really searches), below are academic books all published by internationally respected publishers, they all have "Categorical perception" in title and "discuss it" in entire content. The fact that you didn't see or know doesn't meant it doesn't exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is far, far from OR or journal webshosting. In good faith, it seems you forgot to do WP:BEFORE. "Categorical perception" (aka, CP) is well known topic and covered "specifically" in Academic books: Published by Cambridge Press, [12], Published by Standford University [13], Significant discusion [14], Published by Indiana University [15]. Dedicated chapter in academic book [16]. Extensively discussed by authoritative Journal Nature [17] and equally reputable Sage Pub [18]. "Catogorical perception" in the news [19], plus [20], [21], [22], [23]. Another extensive academic discussion of Categorical perception specifically [24] –Ammarpad (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had originally closed this as a clear keep. However, after being requested to look into this by the nominator, I got curious and ran a check using Earwig's tool...and given the results I'm struggling to come up with a good reason not to speedy delete, or at least blank, this as WP:COPYVIO, and have accordingly relisted it in case somebody can supply a good reason why it isn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger:, I will try to rewrite it. The sheer volume of resources about this topic is what made me to missed that problem, which is also unbeknown to me, since the article wasn't tagged as such. Nonetheless, we don't normally brought copyvio in AfD (in my knowledge), when I read his nom statement, it is clear to me he meant this is not place to host what one journal published i.e OR, and I searched for sources and find quite opposite. If it were clear CV he should have G11'd it, or take it to appropriate noticeboard if bit hesitant. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is another reason I didn't outright blank it myself. I will not object if any patrolling admin does so, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammarpad'a dismissive and insulting claims aside, Wikipedia is not a host of primary articles on the topic. Wikipedia is not here to help researchers promote their personal take on a topic. If there is a valid encyclopaedia article to be written on this topic, this is not it. Copying what I wrote on The Bushrangers talk when asking for rethinking, 1, claiming that it is not original research shows a misunderstanding about how science research works. People are meant to do research. That's what gets published. A straight out copy of that research is still that research. 2, claiming that it is not just rehosting when the link provided in the nomination Cleary proves that it is just rehosting. duffbeerforme (talk)

@Duffbeerforme: Please can you show me that specific "insulting remark" towards you so that I strike it? And I apologize for it in advance. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained before, I wrote the Wiley encyclopedia entry in 2006 (originally in 2003, for Nature/Macmillan, who then transferred it to Wiley in 2006); I only granted Nature/Macmillan/Wiley the non-exclusive right to publish it, but did not transfer copyright to Nature/Macmillan/Wiley (I am an open access advocate): I retained copyright and also posted the article on WP in 2006^[1]. Then, when asked recently by Patar knight this December 2017 to put the original text in the pulic domain to make sure WP is not violating copyright, I did that too: Ticket#2017120110008571] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_perception to Alfred Neumann, followed by a link to a copy of the original^[2]. Now the WP page has changed a lot across the years since 2006; that's why the WP entry is no longer identical to the verbatim 2006 encyclopedia entry -- but that is what happens with WP entries: they keep getting edited and updated. And an encyclopedia entry, whether in Wiley's Enyclopedia of Cognitive Science^[3] or in Wikipedia is just that: an encylopedia entry, not original research. --User:Harnad (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Margeli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article in discussion seams to have been last updated in 2013 and the article already contains many valuable references. After that there have been many news articles that have appeared on the person subject of the article, and therefore this article should be valid and should continue to exist in Wikipedia. The artist is relevant to the music scene, particularly in the Italian language indie-music community. Here are some articles that have appeared in independent reputable websites and blogs after 2013:
In English:

http://www.obscuresound.com/2016/09/dario-margeli-im-not-brain/

http://emergingindiebands.com/dario-margeli-non-inseguire-i-sogni-video/

http://www.thesirenssound.com/2016/09/19/new-single-from-dario-margeli-im-not-my-brain/

http://skopemag.com/2016/10/28/dario-margeli-im-not-my-brain-video

http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=181440

http://verycooltunes.com/2015/02/16/dario-margeli-five-little-things/

http://top40-charts.com/news/Pop-Rock/Dario-Margeli-Releases-Five-Little-Things/107530.html

http://www.electrowow.net/2017/09/caught-up-in-a-vortex-bolmer-remix.html

In Italian:

http://musictraks.com/2014/09/21/le-cinque-cose-di-dario-margeli-traks/

http://www.rockambula.com/cose-singolo-video-per-dario-margeli/

http://www.mescalina.it/musica/news/4500/dariomargeli

http://oubliettemagazine.com/2014/03/13/dario-margeli-torna-con-il-nuovo-singolo-il-sole-e-le-palme-il-filtro-magico-che-fa-rivivere-i-bei-momenti/

Italian Radio:

https://radiosenisenews.it/2017/10/28/il-cantautore-dario-margeli-pubblica-una-nuova-canzone-dal-titolo-come-reagire/

Italian music charts: The artist also appears regularly charting on the Italian independent artists music chart. There is no direct link, as these charts get updated and the link to the old charts get deleted. There is a snapshot of such charts on the artists official site https://dariomargeli.wordpress.com/press-links/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayumadehrafti (talk • 13:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)contribs) 09:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as artist seems to be too trivial. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as the artist is relevant in the independent rock community in Italy and has also appearances on websites in English speaking countries and Spain. Non of the references are trivial. For example, the artist has mentions in Rockit.it website, which is the 3rd most important music website in Italy (In terms of Alexa traffic and Facebook followers). There are articles in the very busy and exclusive Vice magazine on the artist. There are 16,100 results in a Google Search for the artists. In addition to the references in the main article and the references mentioned in previous points of this article, you can find even more articles on the artist:

- Spain music journal example (In Spanish): https://mirolloeselindie.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/things-that-are-ok-about-me-el-nuevo-trabajo-de-dario-margeli/ http://muzikalia.com/la-playlist-emergente-la-semana-2/

- More Italy examples (In Italian): http://indiepercui.altervista.org/dario-margeli-mente-autoproduzione/

http://oubliettemagazine.com/2014/03/13/dario-margeli-torna-con-il-nuovo-singolo-il-sole-e-le-palme-il-filtro-magico-che-fa-rivivere-i-bei-momenti/

The artist is relevant in these regions. Editors should be aware that there is a music community beyond the English-language media. The artist also has mentions in English language media as described earlier in the earlier points of this dicussion.

Nayumadehrafti (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- You've already !voted keep once, so I've struck your second !vote. The sources you've provided do not appear to meet WP:RS. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Hey Rob₁₃ you mention meeting WP:RS stnadard. I have looked at WP:RS and as mentioned in previous notes on these pages, many of the sources are from "well-established news outlets". That is in Italy. To facilitate your work we even provided a page that does analysis on which are the important music news outlets in Italy. Here is an article that analyzes which are the important music news outlets in Italy, and given that some the articles on this individual appear on these sites, the WP:RS requirement of "well established new outlets" is perfectly met. http://www.fabriziogalassi.com/2015/06/15/quali-sono-i-siti-musicali-piu-influenti-in-italia-la-classifica-di-maggio-2015/ --Nayumadehrafti (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a blog post, not an article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey Rob₁₃ Fabrizio Galassi is a music industry researcher. His site, which you call blog does research on what sites are most influential in music in Italy. If you don't like his research, you can do one yourself and you will find out that the important music information websites in Italy are the one's that appear in his article. Just because you live in Seattle doesn't mean that significant music news outlets in other countries suddenly don't count. In Seattle you may read Pitchfork, in Italy they read Rockit.it. --Nayumadehrafti (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People know who this artist is in Italy. --Eurovacationexpert (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Sock !vote struck. GAB^gab 17:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Not enough coverage. This can change in the future. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 16 December 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. – Joe (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kamal Higher Secondary College[edit]

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

Fails WP:V. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Kamal Boys High School (2nd nomination), which may be about the same subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. well this is difficult. At present I've been trying to verify that it even exists, and the best I can find is [25] - which is a Punjab government document which has the address as "Gulshan Saeed Colony Mullan Wala Road Near Al-Kamal Boys High School Jampur". This is thin, but it does at least give a little hope that other sources may exist to show that the school exists. JMWt (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also a mention [26] and [27]. I've just read above that this might be the same as this other recent AfD - [28] so I've now no idea which is which. Or if they're the same thing. JMWt (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on balance I think that relevant sources might exist, but it doesn't seem possible to verify that they're actually talking about the subject of this page. If someone is local to the school, one would think that they could find local sources to clarify the name and show it exists. But in the absence of those arguments, the evidence is too thin IMO. JMWt (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent WP:RS covers significantly to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS. The recent AFD was conclusive enough. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely existing is not enough to show something is notable. It is time that we start giving the same sorts of notability considerations to schools we give to other organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 13 December 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 Evolutionary developmental biology. @Elmidae: You seem to have a good idea of what can be usefully merged, perhaps you could do the honours? – Joe (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental Drive[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for essays. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge to Evolutionary developmental biology. This article is too much a a sweeping messay to be useful in its current form. The 'History' and 'Developmental Reprogramming' sections are already covered in the above article; sections 3 & 4 might find use (shortened and de-essayed) in Evolutionary_developmental_biology#The_origins_of_novelty, or maybe better Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance or a similar more specialized article. All in all, the subject area has been pretty well covered on WP and while the examples are useful, this detail does not merit a full article with historical run-up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or possibly merge elements) to Evolutionary developmental biology, as per Elmidae. Rather than an essay, the CopyVio report suggests it's more of a reworking, but not a simplification of, the Nature reference. Looks like a college project, but nothing on the article creator's page to indicate one way or another.Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 15 December 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. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wax Dey[edit]

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

Does not satisfy musical notability. Google search does not find significant third-party coverage, only vanity hits.

Article needs a lot of cleanup. This could be solved if notability could be established. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has references for verification, you can check the references 1 and the source, the article wins Best Male artist in central Africa Music Award in Nigeria.He is also an Ambassador to the UNAbanda bride (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have won several national and international awards and has reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article needs serious heavy cleanup. Article contains reliable sources but doesn't really satisfy musical notability. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 06:11, 14 December 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. Sandstein 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Book City (Canada)[edit]

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

The article is not notable. see Wikipedia:CORP Rusf10 (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered in-depth in sources enough to meet CORP. [29] [30][31][32][33] ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While this does indeed have more sourceability than is present in the article as written, companies have the added burden of having to pass WP:AUD — which requires the coverage to expand beyond the strictly local — before they're actually considered notable. But none of the additional sources shown above actually do that — even the one that has the appearance of being from a national news organization, Global News, is from the network's local news bureau in Toronto and not from the national news division, so it's not a source that assists a CORPDEPTH pass. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met with the sources listed above, whether the ORG SNG is met or not is irrelevant. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order for a topic to meet the criteria for establishing notability, there must be two references that are published in reliable sources and which are intellectually independent (as per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Of the 5 references posted above by Patar above, at least two meet these criteria. The torontoist.com article, while relying on some quotes from the owner in relation to the announcement on shutting down, also provides a history of the store with plenty of independent analysis and commentary. This one meets the criteria for establishing notability. In my opinion, this nowtoronto.com reference also meets the criteria. Even though it is full of quotations from various former employees, they are not current employees spouting the latest marketing department-produced soundbite but are voicing their own independent opinions. Finally, I also believe that this thestar.com reference also meets the criteria. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:58, 12 December 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 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Pearson[edit]

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

Non-notable official on a government panel that awards civil honours. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as generic artists such as Ian Porter (commercial artist), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro, and local council members such as Aubrey Murphy (mayor).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything to support notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability - and on top of that, being that the Australia Day link is dead, there's no sources about his life at all apart from the honours list. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This bio has been updated and the multiple references now suggest that Pearson's decade long management of an important national organisation marks him as notable. Twice honoured by his country he seems to be rather more than "an official on a government panel". Clearly the nominator of the AfD knows little of Australian civil honours as they have nothing to do with the National Australia Day Council. I hope in future users will take more care in attempting to delete articles in which they clearly have no expertise or understanding. Castlemate (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2001, 15,000 one-off awards of Centenary Medals were made, in this case it was for organising a centenary event. I had a classmate who got one for being on a youth parliament. So a CM doesn't prove anything especially when the underlying achievement is itself NN. Further for AM, it only requires 'local activity' Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable government funtionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Would you be able to explain how you have come to this conclusion? Castlemate (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since when are Members of the Order of Australia not notable? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Member of the Order of Australia is the second-lowest award in the Order of Australia system, with plenty of people who wouldn't pass WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - In 2001, 15,000 one-off awards of Centenary Medals were made, in this case it was for organising a centenary event. I had a classmate who got one for being on a youth parliament. So a CM doesn't prove anything especially when the underlying achievement is itself NN. Further for AM, it only requires 'local activity' Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Request. As Pearson is not an academic or educator could someone please move this vexatious AfD to an edition sorting cat that is more appropriate than Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. As the nominators many attacks this month on my bios are now being "speedied" into history I'm sure this notable Australian will go the same way if viewed by appropriate editors. Castlemate (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources that outlines credible notability. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- neither his position or awards or notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the nominator Adsfvdf54gbb, states (in part) "Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College...", the same could be said about the nominator ie. "part of a series of spam afds whose primary work is to flood afd with nominations of articles created by Castlemate." The nominator has edited wikipedia since November 17, 2017, in that time they have only worked on afd, nominations and subsequent comments on those, curious for a new editor, and of the 10 nominations they have made, all of the articles were created by Castlemate, this has all the hallmarks of a vexacious person who has something against Castlemate. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, further, the nominator describing the National Australia Day Council as "a government panel that awards civil honours" is like dismissing the New York Public Library as "a library in an american city." Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request. My recent update of this bio doesn't seem to have been saved but has now. I would appreciate it if all those calling for a delete could revisit this entry and reconsider your opinion of non-notability. The AfD is still listed incorrectly as "academic or educator" and hasn't been corrected. Old refs that provided information on Person's work history seem to have gone from the web. I will endeavour to reference those as soon as posible. Castlemate (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the expansion of the article does not address notability concerns.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The grasping at straws with the addition of vast swathes of stuff totally irrelevant to Pearson in the lede illustrates that this is hopelessly non-notable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, blunders to the article are still present. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually think this isn't all that far off, but the lack of any independent in-depth coverage is a problem. The Hirst foreword and a couple of the other sources get him close but not close enough. (AMs, as has been established multiple times, are not automatically notable - let alone Centenary Medallists!!) Frickeg (talk) 10:20, 15 December 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 14:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Porter (commercial artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) whose primary work is to flood WP with articles on people from Newington College such as local council members such as Aubrey Murphy (mayor), members of social clubs such as Deuchar Gordon, and generic public servants such as Warwick Cathro.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I cannot find anything to support notability. Aoziwe (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to weak upon review of museum material. Aoziwe (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Powerhouse Museum holds his archive and states "The strength of the collection lies in the comprehensive selection of posters, original artwork and other material for the Hardie Rubber Company Ltd and (a smaller selection) for Rega, and in Porter's representative 1930s graphic style. Although Porter was not amongst the most innovative or cutting-edge of his generation; he appears not to have travelled overseas for experience or training and he never broke away from a conventional and fairly static approach to graphic design, he is interesting as his work expressed the basic design tenets of its day." Castlemate (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- so basically it is saying that he didn't make any new technical or artistic advances, but just did what a routine skilled worker would do. Not notable Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a potential claim to notability, but that entire section is completely unsourced as opposed to the trivia about his high school, and Google doesn't bear out any other sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dead links can be repaired but in the meantime this might help: Ian Porter commercial art archive Castlemate (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is conferred by his archives being held by a significant museum. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The entry says the archive consists of him making advertising posters for a company. There is no explanation of why any of these are notable contributions. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Entry"? As for "explanation of why any of these are notable contributions", "Notability is conferred by his archives being held by a significant museum". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Request. As Porter is not an academic or educator could someone please move this vexatious AfD to an edition sorting cat that is more appropriate than Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. As the nominators many attacks this month on my bios are now being "speedied" into history I'm sure this notable Australian will go the same way if viewed by appropriate editors. Castlemate (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears non-notable, and a search for supporting references confirms that thought. The strongest item here is the personal papers in an archive. I don't lend that much credence; were there numerous published mentions and refs, the archive would look good. Without it, we have just a guy whose papers are in an archive. An archivit's choice to include items in their collection is not the same as a curator's choice to include artworks in a museum's permanent collection.104.163.154.101 (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The items from the archives source mentioned above, in point form:

- "Original [gouche] artwork (1) for 'Hardie Garden Hose signed 'Porter' in lower left corner"

- "Letterhead (1), 'Hardie Rubber Company Limited/ Tyre Department"

- " Catalogues (3) including one for rubber footwear range for 1933-34, printed both sides and folds out to poster format;"

- "Price lists (2) for footwear and rubber footwear;"

- "Pamphlets (4) for tennis shoes, raincoats and tyres and tubes, n.d.;"

- "Leaflet (1) for Rabbit Poison 'Rabbo-Phos' stocked by James Hardie Trading Coy Ltd, n.d.;"

- "Posters (5), small, for tennis, bowls and leather casual shoes, garden hoses, kiddies shoes;"

- "Posters (14), large, two for 'Hardie Garden Hose', one with two kookaburras catching a hose (rather than a worm) which adopts imagery first used by May Gibbs in the 1920s, the second depicts a glamorous woman using a Hardie hose in a garden setting, annotated with 'Brings beauty to the Garden', c. 1939; remaining 12 are for 'Hardie North British Rubber Footwear' and are catalogue-type displays for seamless backed sportshoes, date range 1934-39"

- "Another small collection of leaflets (9) relate to Rega Products Ltd - possibly based in Marrickville, NSW between the years 1943-8, when Porter was doing this work."

- "'Oil Can Catalogue', 'Oil fillers and syringes', 'Bucket Spray Pumps', Agricultural Catalogue', 'Engineers' oil cans', 'Valve connectors', 'Motor trade catalogue', Pneumatic sprayer' and 'Valves and cocks', none are dated.

- "A miscellaneous (gouache) artwork for the magazine 'The World. Your Story Must be Told. Use the World', n.d., may relate to the first Rega leaflet listed above as the image but not the lettering is reproduced." 104.163.154.101 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to top that off, the entry for the archives above actually discusses his notability, saying he's very average: "Although Porter was not amongst the most innovative or cutting-edge of his generation; he appears not to have travelled overseas for experience or training and he never broke away from a conventional and fairly static approach to graphic design, he is interesting as his work expressed the basic design tenets of its day."104.163.154.101 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time to rid Wikipedia of the Newington College spam articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a useful contribution and is little more that a personal attack on an editor and an institution. Castlemate (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the Powerhouse stuff is pretty good, but the absence of any other independent coverage leaves this one just short. Very much open to convincing with further sources. Frickeg (talk) 10:24, 15 December 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 14:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bym Porter[edit]

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

Medium level public servant. The main source is a broken link, presumably this non-indept piece by his son. Part of a series of spam articles by Castlemate (talk · contribs) who writes articles about non-notable people from Newington College.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfvdf54gbb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Longhair\^talk 02:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to support notability. TROVE has a few solid hits but these are only routine family BDMs. Nothing to show notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is notable as the intro notes ... "an Australian engineer who managed the design and construction of the Australian National Library and the Royal Australian Mint. As principal engineer in charge of the Canberra water supply, he was instrumental in the fluoridation of the national capital's water supply in 1964." References require updating but please note that this AfD on a distinguished Australian engineer is part of an attack by a user with a highly suspicious eding record. Castlemate (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to suggest notability: the only sources cited are a dead link to the Planning and Land Authority, birth and death records that apply to everyone, and his old school's Register of Past Students. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No less an authority than the ACT Goverment not only names a road after this subject but quotes his son in detailing his life. Maybe not independent in the minds of Wikipedians but I'll go with the governments view of Porter' notability. While others are busy deleting I have taken the time to update a reference. Castlemate (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would indicate that only his son really knows about him, and no 3rd party people actually do. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Local road naming, even in the ACT, signifies only necessarily local notability: there are millions of streets named after Joe Bloggs who had a farm in the area once or sat on a local council in 1862. Not one of the streets I lived on in the ACT was named after someone notable for Wikipedia purposes (and hell, even on your own argument - they named a lane after him, not a freeway). The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - But this is not "named after Joe Bloggs who had a farm in the area once or sat on a local council in 1862"; it is a street named after someone for their achievements and contribution to society. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete naming roads is a dime a dozen. I can name 20 people who have roads named after them in Detroit, Michigan alone who are no where near notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thank you for your vote but this discussion is about the Australian Capital Territory not Detroit, Michigan. If you know something about "an Australian engineer who managed the design and construction of the Australian National Library and the Royal Australian Mint" you might like to contribute to this discussion. If not, and that appears to be the case, it might be more appropriate for you to remain on your own turf. Thanks Castlemate (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The following might help to explain how a street name is gazetted in the ACT: Public places in the ACT are named in accordance with the provisions of the Public Place Names Act 1989. This link to the Public Place Names Guidelines (NI20140643) explains some of the processes relating to street names in the ACT.[34] I have found a link to the disallowable instrument (DI2009- 33) and explanatory statement which determined the name Bym Porter Lane: [35] The instrument was notified on the ACT Legislation Register on 26 March 2009 and tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly for 6 sitting days. Attached is an extract from the official publication of the Works Department social club (Action) recording Porter’s retirement in 1969 and also enclosed an example of the sources used to research Bym Porter’s career: [36] SPECIAL GAZETTE UNDER THE “PUBLIC SERVICE ACT, 1902.” (1929, January 18). [37] Department of Works and Local Government RESIGNATIONS. Government Gazette of the State of New South Wales (Sydney, NSW : 1901 - 2001) Thursday 24 December 1936 [Issue No.211 (SUPPLEMENT)] p 5284 … Mr. Alan James Porter,, Engineering Draftsman [30th December, 1936]. [38] Commonwealth of Australia Gazette (National : 1901 - 1957) Thursday 4 June 1953 [Issue No.35] p 1565 Department of Works. Castlemate (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ACT Government itself says it is looking for notable Australians for commemoration: "ACT Place Names welcomes nominations of names of notable Australians for inclusion in the ACT's nomenclature database to be used to help research names for future suburbs, streets and parks."[39] Castlemate (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That would indicate that because there are so many streets, that they've run out of notable people that come to mind to name stuff after, and then need the citizens to nominate people who have done good work, but are not notable/'significant' in the WP sense. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It indicates no such thing (not least because they specify "notable Australians"), which is mere conjecture on your part, and has no place in an AfD discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Upon reviewing the page/ article as requested, it seems no action can be taken until whomever is principally responsible for it can fix its broken refs. If this is not done in a reasonable time frame, say 14 days it should be deleted not on basis of notability or lack of, but for lack of reliable genuine refs. Robertwhyteus (talk) 12:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Repairs have been made but the debate is still listed as if Porter was an academic or educator so this is not being seen by appropriate editors. Are you able to help in this regard? Thanks Castlemate (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Although now fixed, dead links are not a valid reason for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Request. As Porter is not an academic or educator could someone please move this vexatious AfD to an edition sorting cat that is more appropriate than Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators. As the nominators many attacks this month on my bios are now being "speedied" into history I'm sure this notable Australian will go the same way if viewed by appropriate editors. Castlemate (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The links do not appear to have been repaired. The fact that this article is included in a list concerning educators is not a problem. Wikipedia editors generally are competent to evaluate articles for deletion regardless of their appearance in various lists and anyway that is not the only way one might happen upon this one. This article replies too much on one single reference which it resembles, ACT place names. The Ryerson Index goes to a search, not a result. The BD&Ms links don’t work, and the Canberra Times article is a tiny fragment. The Newington College Register of Past Students 1863-1998 (Syd, 1999) has no publication details. Bym Porter may be notable but Wikipedia cannot recognise notability without high quality references demonstrating this. The normal suggestion in cases like this would be to advise you to fix the broken references and find others demonstrating notability, such as inclusion in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The bar is raised when the notability issue is raised, as it is a matter of evidence, not opinion. If the notability case cannot be made to the satisfaction of other editors the page will have to be deleted. This should not be taken as an attack or disrespect of the author/s of the article, it is simply the burden of proof called for when questions arise.Robertwhyteus (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The ACT link is working for me; and Bym Porter close is viewable on any half-decent mapping site with coverage of Australia; here it is on Google Maps. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response If a bar is raised due to an AfD then I would like to see a link to that curious policy. A person is surely notable or they are not. This person is not listed by the ADB nor are many others who are notable. While I'm a great fan of this notable publication I am well aware that it has many gaps. I'm pleased to hear that Wikipedia editors are generally competent. If that is the case I would like to see this debate competently listed under engineers rather than rather than educators. I accept your good faith and thank you for you for its reciprocity. As you can see the only references are now the ACT Government and the Canberra Times. I am disappointed to find that "an Australian engineer who managed the design and construction of the Australian National Library and the Royal Australian Mint and was principal engineer in charge of the Canberra water supply as well as instrumental in the fluoridation of the national capital's water supply in 1964" is not notable. Wikipedia and Australia is the poorer for that proclamation. Castlemate (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Personally I agree with you. There’s no reason why a principal engineer of a major Australian city shouldn’t be considered notable. Especially a city which was built more or less as a demonstration of best practice design. The article is more than a stub and it's very well written, not too long and admirably encyclopedic in tone. It’s not controversial and not about a living person. If we could just turn up a couple of references I would not hesitate in voting KEEP. It’s frustrating there aren't refs other the streetnames citing his head of the river win, his first XV position and role, his representative rugby union career, army service, association with Royal Australian Mint, National Library building, fluoridation, ACT rugby union judiciary, Anzac Parade in web searches, in results other than versions of the wikipedia article. However I did find his mention in the Nominal Roll of WWII veterans, so there are records, perhaps not as accessible as they could be http://nominal-rolls.dva.gov.au/veteran?id=290148&c=WW2#R I hardly think Wikipedia is going to be overcrowded because of principal engineers and my leaning would be towards KEEP. Certainly there would seem to be enough discussion and it would be good if some person way above my pay grade (joke) made a decision. PS the bar raised due to an AfD is not policy, it just happens, human psychology. It’s akin to “if all you’ve got is a hammer, all you can see is a nail”. If all you’ve got is an afD, all you can see...
Keep: Clearly meets GNG. The nomantor's ad hominem attack against the artile's creator is not only false (none of the articles constitute spam) and is certainly not a basis for deletion, but is indicative that the remainder of the rationale offered is weak. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it still has no independent source except an obit by his son. Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. As the subject's name is Alan James Pawley Porter who was known by his nickname, Bym, and is variously T.P.Porter and T.P.P.Porter further research is taking time. Between his arrival in Canberra in 1936 and his departure for Adelaide in 1948 Porter is mentioned in the Canberra Times, the paper of record for the national capital, no less than 78 times. Theses mentions are not just in lists as indeed even the newspaper thought him sufficiently important enough to discus his departure from Canberra in 1948. Given the attacks on the quality of the ACT Government reference used and reliance on that for biogrphical details, I haven't even bothered to mention all his rugby notability. If this entry is given a stay of execution I will include this, his war career, his involvement in engineers professional bodies and public service appointments. As many of those calling for deletion of public servants in this barbarous mass execution of bios created by me will tell you ... public service isn't sexy. Even less sexy is engineering. Consequently Wikipedia is full of non-notable self promoting reality TV stars. Castlemate (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Although written by his son, the source is fine - it's a government body, that both commissioned the piece (an act which itself indicates notability) and exercised editorial oversight. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no automatic implication that because something is posted on a government website that it becomes independent or commissioned Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed there isn't. That's not what I said. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The perils of a lack of independent source can be seen when you look at the National Library of Australia website which states that it was designed by Walter Bunning not this person. Other searches indicate the same. When you have a source by a family member or other associates, you get the danger of falsely inflating achievements that were done by other people Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that nowhere in our article - which does not in any case lack an independent source - do we claim that Porter "designed" the NLA suggests that the only "peril" at play is your use of a straw-man argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searching for Porter, under various versions of his name (including his nickname and the various initialisms mentioned above), brings up very few relevant results. Although he appears to have enjoyed a successful career, there is no indication from the information we do have that the subject meets WP:GNG or made a significant/notable impact in the field of engineering. The fact that a road has been named after someone does not, in itself, demonstrate that the honouree is inherently notable for encyclopaedic purposes. Eloquai (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a worldwide Wikipedia, not a specialized project for the advancement of the specialized interests of a Australians. As I said before, having a road named after someone is in no wise a sign of notability. Further, this is past of the spamming of Wikipedia with useless articles on varoius Newington College alumni, a spamming that needs to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability according to some government is not the same as notability according to Wikipedia guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not been able to find any sources whatsoever apart from the two in the article, one of which is a very minor routine obit in the Canberra Times, and the other of which is a bio written by his son because he had a street named after him. Neither is remotely sufficient for WP:GNG. I've had a look in Trove (which has the Canberra Times fully digitised) and haven't been able to find anything. Frickeg (talk) 10:10, 15 December 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. – Joe (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Carmichael[edit]

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

The subject only has trivial mentions in the sources. Nothing major to prove he's notable. Article is also promotional due to the nature of sources. FiendYT ★ 06:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, referencing appears sufficient to establish notability, particularly those that include Mr. Carmichael as a highly-ranked speaker. PK T(alk) 17:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a BLP that lacks reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; a nn businessperson and speaker. Being one of "100 Great Leadership Speakers for Your Next Conference" is an insufficient claim of significance. Wikipedia is not a speaker's bureau to help people book their next gig. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to my research meets the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, usual spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Keep arguments would be more convincing if they explained how/showed their research. Being quoted, brief mentions etc is not nearly enough for NBIO/GNG. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:00, 15 December 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Body Freedom Collaborative[edit]

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

I missed nomination of this one with the others. Non-notable organization, I can only find a few mentions in local newspapers. Rusf10 (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. The organization is not notable. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 14:05, 8 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpsoles[edit]

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

Dubiously notable commercial product. All mentions I've found have been trivial mentions or ads. The paragraph in Black Belt Magazine is in an advertorial feature about new workout devices that helpfully includes pricing and where to buy - ie, it's an ad. No independent reliable sources found. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nn product and an advertorial-only content. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 12 December 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 Kellyville, New South Wales#Commercial areas. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kellyville Village[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. gnews reveals routine coverage like Gloria Jeans closing. shopping centres are not inherently notable and this one with 42 stores isn't particularly large. LibStar (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, agree with nominator, this appears to be a small (mostly) single storey shopping centre, a look at gmaps shows it to be only about 12,000sqm, a gsearch does not reveal any sources that lead to WP:GNG, as the Kellyville article has a section that discusses this centre, a redirect may be appropriate(?) Coolabahapple (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as suggested by User:Coolabahapple. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to the appropriate section in the Kellyville, New South Wales article. Not enough notability for a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:52, 9 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Moody Allen[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable individual. Quis separabit? 02:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete From what Google brings up, she was a hymn composer. Nonetheless of the hymns that I am coming across, none is special in its own sense. As such I wouldn't think the person is notable or of great public importance to have their own page on Wikipedia.Thelost byte (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: and AfD regular who created this page ages ago, John, are there sources we're not seeing? Or was this page creation a rookie error?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well the article was created back in 2009 when both the notability guidelines in Wikipedia and my understanding of them was broader. There is this source [40] which is not really reliable, and not very substantial either. The main thing learned is her first name was Julia, and that she at times was called Penny. I can find some additional references to her music, but nothing that talks about her substantially.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't source it either.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 10 December 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 Old Yeller (film). Content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 14:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old Yeller (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG HindWiki^Connect 02:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HindWiki^Connect 02:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Old Yeller (film), per Note 1. of WP:NSONG. I cannot find evidence of notability: it exists, gets passing mentions in print, but even The Disney Song Encyclopedia devotes all of 3 sentences to it. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge ~~without redirect~~ to Old Yeller (film) – This unreferenced article contains no indication of notability outside of the film. A sentence or two in that article would be fitting given its size. Animalparty correctly notes that in The Disney Song Encyclopedia there is all of 3 sentences to it but that constituted a reasonably-sized paragraph (67 words)—which is slightly undersized considering the rest of the book though—which I will barely count as significant coverage. For reference the exact placing in the book is here. The book was authored by an 'internationally recognized' writer (Thomas S. Hischak, bio here) and another respected author by the name of Mark A. Robinson, showing independentness and reliability. Unfortunately I can not find any more sources ([41], [42], [43]). There may be sources in print, thus the 'weak'. Not delving into NSONG here because I am unfamiliar with it. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No redirect because of the title disambiguator, by the way. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all opposed to a few lines of text being added to Old Yeller (film) to mention the song and soundtrack, but I don't see why (song) would preclude this as a redirect. Per WP:RPURPOSE, redirects help readers quickly find the intended information, whether via Wikipedia search or Google search for say "Old Yeller song". Also, Redirects are cheap, and it could be still be categorized in song categories, per WP:RCAT. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: No, redirects are not indexed by Google, for example see that the 9/11 redirect is not here. Wikipedia's search engine does, but how likely are you to search 'Old Yeller (song)'? J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 23:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can't predict what people will or will not search, and if any content is merged a redirect must be maintained. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no opinion on this matter as a whole, but if this is merged, it should be redirected to preserve attribution for copyright reasons with CC-BY-SA 3.0. There isn't a good reason to delete and merge here (an outcome that is possible, and that I have helped to implement in past, but the need for it needs to be compelling.) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strucken. Attribution slipped to the back of my mind there. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:14, 12 December 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wizo Productions[edit]

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

Non notable production company with no coverage, at least under this name that I can find. Fails WP:GNG CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HindWiki^Connect 02:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- was created as a promotional article for non-notable company--Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for the lack of sources. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 14:07, 8 December 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meenay Laas[edit]

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

Nothing found about this organization. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 20:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 20:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HindWiki^Connect 02:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 14:09, 8 December 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Texahomakan Country Music Festival[edit]

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

Clear failure of WP:EVENT and WP:V, searches turn up absolutely no sourcing. For what it's worth, most of the results on Google seem to have been copied from Wikipedia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of coverage, fails WP:EVENT.PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:12, 8 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of former NASCAR drivers[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. This is a hopelessly broad list; "former NASCAR drvier" would...well, include every driver who has ever competed in NASCAR but no longer does. This is thousands of drivers. We don't have List of former MLB players, List of former NFL players, or so on; there is no reason why this is a suitable list. Category:NASCAR drivers is sufficient. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above that it should be deleted as you could list everyone including drivers who maybe only done one race if you wanted too. Not only that is there is a lot of red links and it is unreferenced so there is no way to confirm the starts are correct. NZFC^(talk) 02:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 11:51, 8 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China Southern Flight 6406[edit]

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

relatively trivial accident; no deaths. NOT NEWS DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. No hull loss, no fatalities, and in fact no actual fire. Wikipedia is not a collection of every time an aircraft declares an emergency. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non-notable non-event, delete per WP:NOTNEWS.PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A false alarm and certainly a WP:NOTNEWS incident. Had there at least been some significant changes to safety protocols or in-flight emergency responses, one could possibly argue there is lasting impact; however, I have found no such thing in sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly WP:NOTNEWS - just a false alarm. - Arjayay (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly WP:NOTNEWS - not notable WP:GNG
Delete - Fails WP:AIRCRASH, no lasting impact expected from this newish WP:NOTNEWS incident.Icewhiz (talk) 07:33, 11 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Davis[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:NMUSIC, contestants on reality shows are not automatically notable. Simply signed to a major record label is not enough either for the aforementioned guideline requires at least two album releases. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the article doesn't contain in-depth content for the person at hand here. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS Agricola44 (talk) 22:35, 14 December 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. – Joe (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April Taylor[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, does not seem to pass WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable musician indeed, coverage of article given seems very localised and hence delete per nom. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. HindWiki^Connect 23:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 10 December 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.

[1] NASA, Scientific and Technical Information Division (1989). Reports of planetary geology program - 1988. p. 240.

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Categorical_perception&oldid=47186924

[3] ttps://eprints.soton.ac.uk/257719/1/catperc.html

[4] ttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0470018860.s00490/abstract;jsessionid=11B91975D14568D6D2B1C4CEC4CCE85F.f03t02

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]